Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Well I have some faith in AFLD who I think are doing the testing no? If Froome and any one else in Sky are doping then I will be disappointed but its only sport! It would mean the end of the British Cycling competitive programme and that will give others a chance to win so there would be an upside!
What I find annoying is a website that I have used for years has a a forum that is ruined by a few. I repeat if you have the evidence use it to have the rider sanctioned.

sorry timmers...have you followed the armstrong case???

 

[Alphabet]

Regarding the Walsh situation, I think he ought to have retired from journalism immediately after the Lance-USADA result. Because now he's going through a real-life Batman scenario. 'You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain' and all that.

 

[Snafu352]

So in summary; none of the nobodies posting on the clinic have any solid, conclusive evidence either way, anybody who points this out gets abused personally and on a nationality basis.

The idea that the clinic had anything to do with bringing down armstrong is laughable. It is so sad to see the delusion in supposedly grown people.

The so far, veiled attacks on Walsh as he is not providing the hoped for denouncement and comments such as "it is disappointing" combined with the nationalist element reveal the real motivations of many here. As for the Brits jumping on the anti bandwagon with such fervour, quisling is the term that springs to mind.

Having said all that i don't have a clue who is doping or not, much like the majority of the other nobodies posting on here.

 

[Alphabet]

So in summary; none of the nobodies posting on the clinic have any solid, conclusive evidence either way, anybody who points this out gets abused personally and on a nationality basis.

The idea that the clinic had anything to do with bringing down armstrong is laughable. It is so sad to see the delusion in supposedly grown people.

The so far, veiled attacks on Walsh as he is not providing the hoped for denouncement and comments such as "it is disappointing" combined with the nationalist element reveal the real motivations of many here. As for the Brits jumping on the anti bandwagon with such fervour, quisling is the term that springs to mind.

Having said all that i don't have a clue who is doping or not, much like the majority of the other nobodies posting on here.

Since when do you need qualifications to be able to determine that somebody is doping?

And w/kg alongside climb times are more than enough evidence. The Clinic isn't the Supreme Court, so the posters don't need some kind of state of the art legal team to present 'conclusive evidence' to a jury. That we judge on such 'little' evidence (actually, there are mountains of it, but unfortunately it seems you're one of those "Z0MG psuedo-science!11!!!11!!!!!" types) is only because there's nothing anybody here can do about it. We can all laugh at Froome, we can all come up with clever nicknames for him, we can abuse him, but we can't make him stop doping. We can't make him get caught.

 

[frenchfry]

I have no idea whether the cadence is an indication of anything suspicious but I'm surprised no one has bothered to check it since there's a lot of guessing going on.

I have a PAL video recording of the stage. PAL video is recorded at 25 frames per second, which means that there is 40 ms between each frame. I ran the video in VirtualDubMod and cheked the frames when Froome made his attack. I've grabbed a screenshot each time his left knee is at it's upmost position:

You can see the frame numbers and timings below the screenshots. He makes three full rotations within just 37 frames (1.48 seconds). Hence the cadence is 3/1.48*60 = 121.6

Regarding the accuracy: If we consider the pedal stroke as a 360 degrees rotation, then the feet (pedals) will have moved 30 degrees between each video frame at such a high cadence. This means that the pedals will not necessarily be at the exact same position whenever a rotation has occurred but somewhere within 30 degrees. Therefore analyzing a longer stretch is more reliable. But the error is +/- one frame (40 ms) for the entire sequence, which means that the cadence at this very moment is between 3/1.52*60 = 118.4 and 3/1.44*60 = 125.

Froome flies away from Contador and catches Quintana in just over 100 seconds, and goes right past Quintana - still with a cadence of 115!

Did you calculate his head bobbing cadence? It appears to be as high as his pedalling cadence. It's amazing he doesn't keep running into things while he is staring at his feet.

 

[Snafu352]

Thanks for illustrating my points so well Alphabet

(The fiver is in the post.)

 

[sittingbison]

So in summary; none of the nobodies posting on the clinic have any solid, conclusive evidence either way.....Having said all that i don't have a clue....

Once again a major fail on the issue of "evidence".

There is a considerable body of evidence that Dawg is doping, which has been discussed at length.

As yet there is no "proof" the Dawg is doping, which is what you are probably trying to say... if there were he would be prosecuted.... provided there is not a UCI cover up like Lance

The second point is self evident.

BTW feel free to contribute to this thread which is about Chris Froome, not bashing the clinic

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Nice video analysis, good work.

The real question here is, how much drag is the Froomster providing here for Contador. And yet, just like in the Dauphinee, the Froomster rides away with so much ease.

When he accelarated from Quintana he did get out of the saddle, again proving Kerrison to be sometimes a 'bit' contradicting.

So in summary; none of the nobodies posting on the clinic

Indeed, good way to describe yourself.

 

[alitogata]

Well I have some faith in AFLD who I think are doing the testing no? If Froome and any one else in Sky are doping then I will be disappointed but its only sport! It would mean the end of the British Cycling competitive programme and that will give others a chance to win so there would be an upside!
What I find annoying is a website that I have used for years has a a forum that is ruined by a few. I repeat if you have the evidence use it to have the rider sanctioned.

OK here is your evidence.
Froome climbed Mont Ventoux so fast as Armstrong and Pantani climbed it, while they were doped. Armstrong admitted recently, that he was doped when he had this results and he admitted that all his competitors at that time were doped too.

All cyclist who were so fast were caught doped. No clean rider manage to be so fast.
Does this says something to you, or are you intended to wait Froome to be caught in 5 years from now, to start having some doubts??

 

[frenchfry]

There is one major difference, and it's something I've been very confused about: why none of the pros seem to sweat when climbing. I sweat like a mofo anywhere, regardless of temp or wind.

I was looking for signs of sweating on Froome up Ventoux: nada.

After the dawg turned on the rockets on Ax 3 domaines I could see that he was sweating buckets in the TV images.

 

[saganftw]

what is with people demanding evidence?

this is internet forum,i dont have to provide anything except my opinion,if i had an evidence on froomes (or anyone elses) doping id contact the authorities not the internet warriors

anyone is free to believe that froome is clean,personaly i think its delusional because the only explanation (except for doping) for his performances is that he is one of the Xmen...and i dont believe in miracles no more

 

[armchairclimber]

what is with people demanding evidence?

this is internet forum,i dont have to provide anything except my opinion,if i had an evidence on froomes (or anyone elses) doping id contact the authorities not the internet warriors

anyone is free to believe that froome is clean,personaly i think its delusional because the only explanation (except for doping) for his performances is that he is one of the Xmen...and i dont believe in miracles no more

Well, he's either one of the best EVER or he's naughty. I'm ok with the former until there's evidence of doping, not just evidence of being very very fast.

 

[darwin553]

what is with people demanding evidence?

Because people on here are so definite or confident that he is doping when it still should be treated as a mere possibility that he is!

 

[murali]

The real question here is, how much drag is the Froomster providing here for Contador.

I dont think that there will be much of protection at such low speeds. also contador wasnt behind froome.

 

[Snafu352]

There is a considerable body of evidence that Dawg is doping, which has been discussed at length.

Here is where you are failing old son, along with the majority of the clinic. There is masses of speculation, none of which is based on hard fact or data, thus it is not evidence whatever you or your chums may sincerely, deeply, wish to believe.

BTW feel free to contribute to this thread which is about Chris Froome, not bashing the clinic

It is interesting when people wish to define parameters for the debate. It has always suggested to me that they wish to be able to mainipulate the discussion to suit their beliefs.

If and when real evidence is presented then fine until that point the un-substantiated claims, wild speculation passed off as fact and the level of vitriol is completely un-justified.

It seems to me that many of the clinics populance are still feeling **** hurt by their belief in armstrong and now want to be the first to attack rather than get hurt again.

As i said i don't know who is doping or not. Thankfully much as i enjoy cycling, things like style don't bother me but speculation piled on speculation until some claim it as evidence does. That's lying about others and that's what armstrong did and that's the thing i dislike him for more than the doping.

 

[saganftw]

Because people on here are so definite or confident that he is doping when it still should be treated as a mere possibility that he is!

wth...if we were official authorities we would have to treat him as clean untill proven otherwise

but we are just internet folk here,we have the freedom to discuss anything as openly and hardcore as we want,there are no consequences,i see no reason to hold back...whats the worst thing that can happen? that i would be proven wrong? lmao,doesnt bother me

 

[bewildered]

there is a ton of evidence on this thread. A TON

But all of it is circumstantial and that's all it's ever going to be on an internet forum, it doesn't come close to proof and everyone on both sides of the argument knows this. The thread is about speculation/circumstantial evidence/opinions. You are not going to get anything else, so why do people ask for it?

You are not going to get a positive test or other PROOF on an internet forum, some people seem to be looking for that. You are only going to get speculation/circumstantial evidence/indicators/opinions and there is a ton of it here.

If Froome ever is proved to be doping, then people will look back on this thread and all of the speculation and say 'wow all the signs were there, how were we so naive?'

 

[rhubroma]

So in summary; none of the nobodies posting on the clinic have any solid, conclusive evidence either way, anybody who points this out gets abused personally and on a nationality basis.

The idea that the clinic had anything to do with bringing down armstrong is laughable. It is so sad to see the delusion in supposedly grown people.

The so far, veiled attacks on Walsh as he is not providing the hoped for denouncement and comments such as "it is disappointing" combined with the nationalist element reveal the real motivations of many here. As for the Brits jumping on the anti bandwagon with such fervour, quisling is the term that springs to mind.

Having said all that i don't have a clue who is doping or not, much like the majority of the other nobodies posting on here.

Certainly he's doping silly. Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

Besides look at those times. Only a doped Pantani was faster on Mont Ventoux in 1994 at 57'34" (though only by 16 seconds!), whereas Froom clocked at 50'50" was faster than a doped Contador (58'45") in 2009 and a doped Armstrong (59'00") in 2002.

How is it humanly possible that Froomdawg is faster than those doped riders?

It's just not possible clean.

 

[darwin553]

It seems to me that many of the clinics populance are still feeling **** hurt by their belief in armstrong and now want to be the first to attack rather than get hurt again.

I too feel that most of the cynicism around here about Froome is underscored by this.

 

[Ripper]

Countdown to partial full *** is on its way.

Efforts on the climbs will be measured/controlled. Everywhere else - full R

 

[Snafu352]

but we are just internet folk here,we have the freedom to discuss anything as openly and hardcore as we want,there are no consequences,i see no reason to hold back...whats the worst thing that can happen? that i would be proven wrong? lmao,doesnt bother me

Fine so why the vitriol from the clinic when it is suggested that peoples beliefs may not be accurate?

If your comment above is to be accepted then it must hold true for all opinions not just those that align with your beliefs.

 

[darwin553]

wth...if we were official authorities we would have to treat him as clean untill proven otherwise

but we are just internet folk here,we have the freedom to discuss anything as openly and hardcore as we want,there are no consequences,i see no reason to hold back...whats the worst thing that can happen? that i would be proven wrong? lmao,doesnt bother me

I have no qualms with you discussing it at all but his guilt shouldn't be treated as a done deal but rather something that is still a possibility (however you wish to rate that possibility) and something that still needs to be proved.

 

[horsinabout]

Thanks. I was a sports journalist. Gave it up partly because I became tired of putting out virtual press releases and feeling that I was doing a disservice to myself, never mind the reader. I also clearly didn't have the balls that Walsh (and Kimmage) have. It takes a special kind of person - a champion in their own right to stick to their guns despite the derision, ridicule and intimidation sent their way.

He deserves great praise for the last 10 years and despite the uncertainty/confusion right now over his stance, I think the jury is still out and we should wait until we read his accounts in full.

You must have missed my post earlier today regarding Walsh specifically so I shall copy it for you below:

I would hold fire on Walsh for now. Yes, I have also been a little concerned with the general feel from him lately and his lack of suspicion but then again, he has been allowed to spend a lot of time with Sky, which is now almost up.
He will then hopefully share his findings but until then, he can't/wouldn't really compromise or upset anybody just before or during a massive race.
IF there is something negative to come out I have faith that he will be on the right side of the fence. Everything we have seen from him to this point would suggest that. Even Kimmage sounded a bit worried yesterday but its a delicate situation. Lets just wait until he ends his placement.

However, the odd soundbites he has come out with are true, however disappointing they may seem to us... that unless there is some very good evidence then he/we cannot start throwing accusations around.
Yes, that's exactly what we do but there is a difference. We have a lot more freedom and no reputation as such to lose. Walsh, after years of mistrust is now highly respected for his determination and belief in the truth which was based on documentary evidence from trusted sources. He stood by those sources, believed in them and did not stop until the truth finally came out.
I believe that now, he is in position to be approached by any number of people in the cycling world who may have similar information. This will not happen overnight. It could be months or years before there is something of substance to work with.

In the meantime, he could however ask valid questions and I am sure some will be asked within whatever articles/book he writes about his time with Sky.

Yes, his links to News International are a niggling concern but I have to believe in Walsh. Because if the good and the brave are bought, we are truly doomed

Thank you for responding. I understand what you are saying about Walsh. I don't think the Sky situation is the same as Armstrong era, in that then there were a lot of people trying to bring him down and it was a dysfunctional doping system - so more sources. Now it seems as though people are being bought off or those being signing onto Sky team have written clauses in their contracts that they can't say what has been going on etc..
I think in this regard the sport has changed, along with different ways of doping (that may or may not be testable), and Walsh has had to change with it (hopefully) for now?

Love your optimism there at the end, you sound like the guy in dad's army "were all doomed" lol

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I have no qualms with you discussing it at all but his guilt shouldn't be treated as a done deal but rather something that is still a possibility (however you wish to rate that possibility) and something that still needs to be proved.

Complete nonsense. This is exactly the same argument Lance fans used. Every single one were proven wrong.

If Sky wanted to assist in proving that they're clean, they'd be completely transparent with their numbers, data, etc. They wouldn't have hired Leinders.

What is happening here is blatantly obvious to all but the most willfully obtuse Sky fan.

 

[kaffenback]

Certainly he's doping silly. Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

Can you expand on the above as this is the most shocking/revealing post/accusation I've read regarding Froome and doping.