• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 295 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
TheEnoculator said:
Remember that unlike Armstrong, Froome never failed a drug test, not even a remotely suspicious sample. So there'll be a lot more Froome supporters than Armstrong had back in the days.

We can only look at what's conceived as ridiculous performance and deduce that Froome is most likely on dope. But Sky would be way above USPS in technologies and a lot more lessons learned. So it's much harder to get concrete dirt on Sky.

Brailsford wasn't so confident in turning over the data for no reason.

What is troubling about the first part of this comparrison is how many drug tests Lance actually passed. And the other stuff- spot on.
 
Jul 8, 2013
57
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Froome has 3 mega suspcious performances at this Tour and a yellow jersey.

He did nothing today. He still has 3 mega suspicious performances at the Tour and a yellow jersey.

If he does nothing tomorrow he still has 3 mega suspicious performances at the Tour and probably a yellow jersey.

If he does nothing on Saturday he still has 3 mega suspicious performances at the Tour and probably a yellow jersey.

Do bad performances change what he has already done in this Tour?

No they do not.

6.3, 6.0, 5.85 is far less suspicious than Quintana's 5.8, 5.9, 6.3 performances. Froome is riding like I thought was possible, but his performance regression is still a little beyond what I thought was possible for a perfectly peaked athlete. I had regressions from Froome's Bonascre performance putting him at 5.8 at Ventoux and Alpe with a 6.0 on Annecy. It puts him back into the plausibly not doping area. If he is not a doper he can be put on the ropes tomorrow by a doper.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
Visit site
TheBean said:
Sorry, Sky.

I try to avoid being cynical and to avoid internet jargon.

But, your attempt was an Epic Fail.

I agree with your analysis but I don't think it was an epic fail, rather it was a roaring success. It was done solely for PR, to stop journalists asking awkward questions and the majority of the uninformed public now think that Sky have proved they are clean.

Coupled with Froome's performance on l'Alpe, which will be interpreted as 'human' (after numerous alien performances), Brailsford has pulled a PR masterstroke today.

In fact the more I think about it I now think he made it look like he bonked, I'd say Brailsford laid down the law to him after the rest day questions
 
Jul 15, 2013
60
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
He gives data to a scientist that famously claimed everything was okay with Armstrong. Of all the people in the entire athletic research world, it ends up there. I'm supposed to not make any connection at all? It's all okay?

The first date of the power data is interesting too. Johan Brailsford knew Froome would be great when he saw him finish 10-20 at some TT. And yet, no power data from early-days at Sky. The most scientific team in the world doesn't have it?

That's just the start. No need to reply either. This discussion ends with personal attacks and "you mere mortals can't understand the data anyway" reply.

I couldn't agree more.
I also cannot and won't belive that they don't know his Vo2 max.
I mean, seriously
 
Two things we saw today:

1. Froome didn't go full *** again. Either because he couldn't, or because he didn't need to thanks to previous full *** performances.

2. Froome requested a snack from the team car in the last 5km of the last climb (of which the final km or so is flat) This can hardly be called a bonk, he probably wasted more energy to get the stupid snack than he would have if he had just kept riding.

We learned pretty much nothing from these events.
 
DirtyWorks said:
He gives data to a scientist that famously claimed everything was okay with Armstrong. Of all the people in the entire athletic research world, it ends up there. I'm supposed to not make any connection at all? It's all okay?

The first date of the power data is interesting too. Johan Brailsford knew Froome would be great when he saw him finish 10-20 at some TT. And yet, no power data from early-days at Sky. The most scientific team in the world doesn't have it?

That's just the start. No need to reply either. This discussion ends with personal attacks and "you mere mortals can't understand the data anyway" reply.

You’ll be pleased to know that today on EuroSport Kirby said to Sean Kelly:

“Sean, It appears the doubters have been silenced as Sky have released all of Chris Froome data to the media”

Dead pan Sean reply was perfect.

“Well they didn’t actually release any data. It was more a press statement”.

Commercial break.

In my mind seeing the manner in which they did this just screams more so doping.

Are we seeing Coyle 2.0?
 
sprenten said:
6.3, 6.0, 5.85 is far less suspicious than Quintana's 5.8, 5.9, 6.3 performances. Froome is riding like I thought was possible, but his performance regression is still a little beyond what I thought was possible for a perfectly peaked athlete. I had regressions from Froome's Bonascre performance putting him at 5.8 at Ventoux and Alpe with a 6.0 on Annecy. It puts him back into the plausibly not doping area. If he is not a doper he can be put on the ropes tomorrow by a doper.

Thats assuming the doping is blood bags during rest days like in the olden times.

Yet doping just during training has also been popular since forever.

And unless a teams objection to doping is purely moral (something that is very hard to believe in sky's case because of wiggos defense of lance, their idolization of US Postal, stuff like Froomes behaviour today) then the same "advances in testing" that stop them blood doping would not stop them pushing it in training.
 
frenchfry said:
Two things we saw today:

2. Froome requested a snack from the team car in the last 5km of the last climb (of which the final km or so is flat) This can hardly be called a bonk, he probably wasted more energy to get the stupid snack than he would have if he had just kept riding.

We learned pretty much nothing from these events.

He panicked, when he was minutes ahead of his direct opponent who was having a bad day, and broke the rules to get some food.
I can't explain this other than he was feeling like he was bonking.

He wanted to attack a few k earlier. He would have stayed with Quintana and attacked if he didn't feel like his tank was empty. And he was able to do so every stage before today.
 
frenchfry said:
Two things we saw today:

1. Froome didn't go full *** again. Either because he couldn't, or because he didn't need to thanks to previous full *** performances.

2. Froome requested a snack from the team car in the last 5km of the last climb (of which the final km or so is flat) This can hardly be called a bonk, he probably wasted more energy to get the stupid snack than he would have if he had just kept riding.

We learned pretty much nothing from these events.

I thought it was strange why he attacked at the base of the climb when Porte was in control. Then Bonked and lost nothing to Contador etc. In fact he gained one minute. Why the hell did he attack at the base of the climb? It was ummmm almost, staged to look tired but not lose any time.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I thought it was strange why he attacked at the base of the climb when Porte was in control. Then Bonked and lost nothing to Contador etc. In fact he gained one minute. Why the hell did he attack at the base of the climb? It was ummmm almost, staged to look tired but not lose any time.

My guess is he felt incredible at the base of the climb so he went (shades of Armstrong and Chechu) and thought he could blast the 10k+ to the top but got foiled by the food bonk.
 
thehog said:
You’ll be pleased to know that today on EuroSport Kirby said to Sean Kelly:

“Sean, It appears the doubters have been silenced as Sky have released all of Chris Froome data to the media”

Dead pan Sean reply was perfect.

“Well they didn’t actually release any data. It was more a press statement”.

Commercial break.

In my mind seeing the manner in which they did this just screams more so doping.

Are we seeing Coyle 2.0?

At this rate, Ed's next. Maybe Coggan will get top-billing though.

Sean Kelly seems to play along up to a point where he senses they have taken the story too far. I saw a brief interview on Ax3 where he was describing Froome as incredible and not like Kirby would use the word.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
bewildered said:
I agree with your analysis but I don't think it was an epic fail, rather it was a roaring success. It was done solely for PR, to stop journalists asking awkward questions and the majority of the uninformed public now think that Sky have proved they are clean.

Coupled with Froome's performance on l'Alpe, which will be interpreted as 'human' (after numerous alien performances), Brailsford has pulled a PR masterstroke today.

In fact the more I think about it I now think he made it look like he bonked, I'd say Brailsford laid down the law to him after the rest day questions



I also think what we are calling Sky's PR show today was a success in the mainstream. Even Velonews..

Add to this the fact that Phil & Paul are still involved in cycling jouralism (even though Phil said he would quit if Armstrong were ever proven to be a cheat) and I have no confidence in the mainstream media.

When I very first came to the clinic, I would have dismissed most of these posts as conspiricy theories, but I stuck around and learned things. It turns out those "conspiricy theorists" were correct and years ahead of the mainstream.
 
Jul 8, 2013
57
0
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Thats assuming the doping is blood bags during rest days like in the olden times.

Yet doping just during training has also been popular since forever.

And unless a teams objection to doping is purely moral (something that is very hard to believe in sky's case because of wiggos defense of lance, their idolization of US Postal, stuff like Froomes behaviour today) then the same "advances in testing" that stop them blood doping would not stop them pushing it in training.

Yes, it is assuming blood bag days, but also something like GAS6 or even micro-dosed EPO or HGH. Granted not enough on GAS6 to know for sure its effect on fitness-fatigue curves.

Quintana and Rodriquez look like blood baggers. Contador and Krueziger look normal for riders who gained fitness and then lost it fast which would be normal with gaining a small amount of fitness under racing conditions. Mollema and Tens Dam have the most normal profile of what is expected they cracked a little harder than I would have projected though.
 
Jun 27, 2013
116
0
0
Visit site
Grabbe on armstrong:


Frédéric Grappe on anti-doping and Armstrong
La Francaise des Jeux trainer, Frédéric Grappe, has come out in support of Lance Armstrong, after doping accusations have been leveled at him and the U.S. Postal team. In an in depth interview with L'Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong's results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment.


this guy is a hack/fraud:mad:
 
timbo25 said:
Grabbe on armstrong:


Frédéric Grappe on anti-doping and Armstrong
La Francaise des Jeux trainer, Frédéric Grappe, has come out in support of Lance Armstrong, after doping accusations have been leveled at him and the U.S. Postal team. In an in depth interview with L'Equipe, Grappe said that Armstrong's results have come through hard work and not hard drugs, despite the climate of suspicion that still surrounds cycling (especially in France) at the moment.


this guy is a hack/fraud:mad:

I guess giving it to WADA is now out of the question?
 
So, let's get this straight between Lance and Froome:

1. Had a disease - check.
2. Showed no GT credentials before transformation - check
3. Sean Yates on staff - check
4. Hired doctor known for doping - check
5. Team domestiques ripping legs off top contenders - check
6. Snarky comments - check