Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Dear Wiggo]

froome has broken a bike racing rule by feeding illegally.

in and of itself, i do not see it as a big deal.

but this bs coming of his mouth irks me hugely, '... if you look at the technicality it was actually Richie Porte who fed from the car not myself. I fed from Richie Porte...'

so a gregario has brokonen a rule with the sole goal of illegally feeding his captain after the captain signaled he was in trouble and it is...the gragario's fault

this type of arrogance whilst talking into the mike when the whole world was watching the illegal move is, yes suggestive of someone capable of cheating and bs-ing in your face.

to me, this was certainly not a connection to doping but an indication of an attitude most arrogant dopers have been guilty of.

froome=-1.

the fish rots from the head.
david brailsford.
2012 olympic men's team sprint, deliberately dropping the bike.

 

[zigmeister]

^^ Seen Joe Dombromski? He is Froome's height, but weighs like 137lbs compared to Froome high 140s-low 150s lbs weight.

The kid's hip bones/pelvis/arms are so skinny, along with these strange quads, he is much worse than Froome.

 

[vrusimov]

The same guy that explained Armstrong's performance as reasonable has more claims that might be valid? There's a roadblock for me right there.

Does someone have more background on Grappe? His legitimizing Armstrong, then reappearing to legitimize Sky seems to me like someone at the UCI has him on speed dial.

And Caitlin was about to foist even more fictitious facts on us about Armstrong's cleanliness before he thought better of it and called it off, kind of like Wiggins calling off Kimmage a few years ago. Sports scientists are starting to do as much harm to cycling as doping. To sanction shady performances as proof of cleanliness but dismiss shady performances [to avoid doping allegations] because of extraneous factors is some delirious dissonance.

 

[sprenten]

This has to be some of the stupidest logic I have ever seen in The Clinic: When Froome has the Tour well in hand and has no reason to to anything more than the minimum it excuses his alien performances from earlier in the Tour. How can people be so freaking gullible?

6.3, 6.0, and 5.85 are Alien??? I will not put him in the yes he is clean category, but his regression from Ventoux to l'Alpe is entirely plausible. His peak is a little long, but still acceptable, but he can't be above 6.1 at Annecy.

 

[thirteen]

Just compare the two. Just compare them. Berto is skinny but healthy. Froome is ridiculous. Those veins. Wtf.

Flo, i agree with you but... i really stand by the fact that it was processed to hell and back... what amazes me is the Sky let this piece of crap out and MC retweeted it.

eta: apologies for my nerdiness, but this really annoys me about what passes for excellent photographs in this day and age. no class. or talent.

 

[Almeisan]

And Contador needed chemical assistance to get as lean as he was.

 

[the sceptic]

skybot logic:

Froome peaks all year long at the maximum human limit: he is clean, he could be the new Lemond and his power output is only 5.99w/kg and its normal for clean riders to peak all year long

Froome becomes the new Armstrong: stopwatches and w/kg measurments are for pseudo scientists and people that havent bought acoggans power training guide. He also had a tailwind on every climb

Froome goes back to the human limit: His clean time and modest w/kg shows he must be clean, and since he is no longer peaking he is also clean because only clean riders can have bad days

 

[python]

brailsford's offer to involve wada in the froome's controversy stinks to the sky...

anyone in his position would have known too well that wada will NEVER, EVER get itself involved in proving an athlete is NOT a doper because their charter is to prove the exact opposite when both the legal and scientific evidence allow so.

that the sky chief gets involved in the cheap, transparent PR easily dismissable on common sense and expierence points to me he has something to hide...

and as pointed earlier, froome's arrogance after breaking the simple sporting rule today and referring to the team mate breaking it, hardly helps the case of his obvious capability to cheat and cover it with the ridiculously stupid nonsense.

 

[The Hitch]

His figures have been put to the guy at L'Equipe, he thinks he's clean. .

No. Grappe specifically tweeted that he doesn't pass judgment on whether Froome is clean or not. He certainly does NOT say he thinks Froome is clean.

 

[LaFlorecita]

And Contador needed chemical assistance to get as lean as he was.

Lol *facepalm*

 

[BroDeal]

6.3, 6.0, and 5.85 are Alien??? I will not put him in the yes he is clean category, but his regression from Ventoux to l'Alpe is entirely plausible. His peak is a little long, but still acceptable, but he can't be above 6.1 at Annecy.

What regression? He has no reason to push. He won the ITT even though he admitted he took it easy. All he had to do today was not blow up. The Tour was over on Ventoux.

 

[H2OUUP2]

skybot logic:

Froome peaks all year long at the maximum human limit: he is clean, he could be the new Lemond and his power output is only 5.99w/kg and its normal for clean riders to peak all year long

Froome becomes the new Armstrong: stopwatches and w/kg measurments are for pseudo scientists and people that havent bought acoggans power training guide. He also had a tailwind on every climb

Froome goes back to the human limit: His clean time and modest w/kg shows he must be clean, and since he is no longer peaking he is also clean because only clean riders can have bad days

I'm waiting for one of them to point out he's never tested positive. {sigh}

When that rhetoric starts coming I may have to go grab the doc, and the Delorean and come back to 2013.

 

[MizunoMX20]

Scary

Healthy and normal.

 

[Juan Speeder]

moi aussi!

he's calling it as he sees it and that says something. even if most here don't want to acknowledge that he knows more than we do...

The dude kept blood bags in his kitchen refrigerator, and almost killed himself with them.

He doesn't know very much, if you ask me.

 

[vrusimov]

This has to be some of the stupidest logic I have ever seen in The Clinic: When Froome has the Tour well in hand and has no reason to to anything more than the minimum it excuses his alien performances from earlier in the Tour. How can people be so freaking gullible?

Come now Bro, you know the answer to this one. There are many who are invested in this guy. They wanted Armstrong, but he is such a scandal, they want it all to go away like magic. Doping fatigue my friend, Lemond, Hinault and others just want to believe in something not associated with what they see as cycling's past. They tell us we should believe because they believe, even though we've been sold this farce of goods before. But both you and I know that this can't be just about one man paying the price for decades of duplicitous Federations, riders, Sportifs, sponsors, doctors and others who have fed at the troughs of cycling while turning a blind eye to the nefarious means by which these otherworldly performances have been manufactured. Humans need myths, but they need heroes even more. No one really cares for the commoner, it's the King they come to see.

 

[timbo25]

is froome's real weight 62 KG?

 

[gooner]

and as pointed earlier, froome's arrogance after breaking the simple sporting rule today and referring to the team mate breaking it, hardly helps the case of his obvious capability to cheat and cover it with the ridiculously stupid nonsense.

I see this argument being made a lot in this thread which I disagree with.

It's like you could say a certain footballer who cheats and dives for a penalty would/maybe also have the capability of stooping to dope as well because they are willing to do this to get an added edge. They come up with stupid reasons too for cheating to this level and similiarly their managers come out with all sorts of tosh to defend it publicly. I don't use that to say that footballer has further suspicions of doping from me and the same should be said here as well. This shouldn't be linked to add fuel to the Froome doping argument.

 

[stampedingviking]

He, and Team Sky, are making a mockery of the sport.

How exactly and what proof do you have?

 

[vrusimov]

Why are you criticising Grappe? What exactly is your problem with his comments? Which of the following conclusions do you think are wrong?

1. Froome's performances have been consistent since the 2011 Vuelta according to the power files selected and given to him by Team Sky.

2. Froome's power declines from 20 min efforts to 60 min which is expected.

3. Froome's aerobic power is close to the limits of known physiological science.

4. Froome's recovery between stages must be excellent as he is able to perform near his maximum consistently in a GT.

Seriously, what's your problem? He is most certainly correct.

Personally, I am not sure about number 2. A 60 watt loss between cp20 and cp60 seems superfluous. If his FTP is 440W [his data from Salamanca TT in 2011 shows 405W for 57 min], then that would make his cp20 about 500W and 13.6% higher, when normally it would be around half of that figure. 6.47w/kg 60 min and 7.35w/kg for 20 min. Curiously using Hunter Allen's guidelines of 92-95% of CP20 [500W in this case] for FTP, we get the mysterious Ferrari number [6.76w/kg, FTP 460W]*. *disclaimer, these numbers are for illustrative purposes and not proof that Mr. Froome is jacked to the moon.

In regards to consistency, Armstrong was consistent as well, even though he was not riding at such a high level for such long periods. If what Grappe says can be believed, then he confirms my suspicions that Froome has been good enough to win the Tour since the Vuelta 2011.

However it is the performances before that which are in question. In 2010, judging by his performance at the Commonwealth Games, he would have finished 3.5 min behind Cancellara head to head. 2011 he's riding 30 seconds ahead of him at the Vuelta over 47km. I would rate that as a shocking improvement for a rider that was showing no such improvement prior to that. A rider who felt his form was coming along very nicely at the Giro in 2010, despite what we now hear about the debilitating effects of his bilharzia. I sense myths starting to build around this man. Myths that can't be substantiated, only believed with faith. I'm not a faith guy, especially after the last four years and definitely not after watching Indurain, Riis, Armstrong, Ullrich and others.

 

[timbo25]

I see this argument being made a lot in this thread which I disagree with.

It's like you could say a certain footballer who cheats and dives for a penalty would/maybe also have the capability of stooping to dope as well because they are willing to do this to get an added edge. They come up with stupid reasons too for cheating to this level and similiarly their managers come out with all sorts of tosh to defend it publicly. I don't use that to say that footballer has further suspicions of doping from me and the same should be said here as well. This shouldn't be linked to add fuel to the Froome doping argument.

you do know, footballers still have the scheduled urinetest like cyclist had in 1996?

 

[timbo25]

How exactly and what proof do you have?

proof is for court, not on a forum

 

[lemoogle]

I think at some point we need to stop with all the " what proof do you have? " posts, yes we get it , there are thousands of posts on this topic in the clinic but they all say " I think he dopes but that's just personal opinion or I just don't like the brits " there is absolutely no evidence that leads us to think he dopes, and CERTAINLY no proof.

Anyone remind me of that clear "proof" we got for lance?

 

[thehog]

How exactly and what proof do you have?

@ammattipyoraily: #TDF, Alpe d'Huez (13.80 km, 8.11 %):
2008 | Chris Froome: 51 min 13 sec.
2013 | Chris Froome: 40 min 56 sec.

That's some transformation! No wonder no data from pre-vuleta11!

And he bonked!

 

[LaFlorecita]

The dude kept blood bags in his kitchen refrigerator, and almost killed himself with them.

He doesn't know very much, if you ask me.

I'm pretty sure he knows how to spot a doper though. IIRC he has criticized Contador in the past, so these tweets are pretty telling.

 

[King Boonen]

brailsford's offer to involve wada in the froome's controversy stinks to the sky...

anyone in his position would have known too well that wada will NEVER, EVER get itself involved in proving an athlete is NOT a doper because their charter is to prove the exact opposite when both the legal and scientific evidence allow so.

that the sky chief gets involved in the cheap, transparent PR easily dismissable on common sense and expierence points to me he has something to hide...

WADA doesn't have a charter does it? I see no problem with this. WADA review evidence all the time, why not this? Many people have said they want the data given to independent experts, if not WADA or someone they choose who else?