Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

Bailsford agrees that Froome's willingness to cheat today suggests he is more likely to cheat in other ways

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.'

"If I'm a liar and a cheat and if my ethics and morals are all about cheating, if that's what we're doing here, lying to the world and cheating, then surely I'll be doing it in other places in my life. Not just parts."

Or at least did agree.

ps, thanks to byop for the memory.

 

[the sceptic]

Brailsford, the cycling philosopher. He is like the David Brent of cycling.

 

[D-Queued]

Bailsford agrees that Froome's willingness to cheat today suggests he is more likely to cheat in other ways

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky

"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.'

Or at least did agree.

ps, thanks to byop for the memory.

Just like DB wouldn't hire half a cyclist, or condone a half-arsed performance, he clearly wouldn't condone other half-way measures like being a half-cheat.

This is marginal gains we are talking about here.

Dave.

 

[acoggan]

Just to clarify on previous statements. I said my model is more complex/realistic, and that it would be interesting (from an intellectual perspective) to see if it gave a comparable result in a general sense. I'm not interested in specifically analyzing Froome's data, though, as doing so would tell you nothing re. whether or not he is doping.

 

[acoggan]

Personally, I am not sure about number 2. A 60 watt loss between cp20 and cp60 seems superfluous.

As I posted before, this value needs to be interpreted in the context of Grappe's model, which is described in the paper to which I linked.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If Froome is clean, everyone else is clean too...

 

[Ferminal]

I agree, if Froome is clean, Porte is clean.

 

[BroDeal]

Bailsford agrees that Froome's willingness to cheat today suggests he is more likely to cheat in other ways

This is the same Brailsfraud that when faced with a UCI rule to ensure fair competition by making illegal equipment that is not available to all competitors set up a bogus webpage where BC's gear is purportedly sold. The page gives no prices other than warning people they will be very high, gives no deliverary timeline other than warning that it will be indeterminate, and gives no way to order other than an e-mail address. Quotes people have managed to get for a helmet are $5000. Even people who have not balked at the prices, which are obviously made to dissuade anyone from ordering, have still not been able to order. Boardman reported that zero frames have been sold

This is clearly cheating. It was not a spur of the moment thing, like diving in soccer, It was pre-planned by the management of British Cycling.

By Brailsford's own words we can conclude he would be willing to cheat in other ways.

 

[Carols]

Well I always thought this was indicative of his character--certainly not afraid to lie to get what he wanted!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...irst-home-cycling-faces-uphill-091543331.html

'Kinjah said that for the 2006 Road World Championships Froome used official federation e-mails to enter himself, without the knowledge of officials who did not support him.

After Kinjah obtained the password for the e-mail account, Froome wrote e-mails pretending to be the chairman and entered himself for the tournament. But the move didn't quite go to plan as Froome crashed into an official.'

Impersonate an official to cheat his way into a race. Some role model!

 

[sittingbison]

Ricci Ricco has spoken again. Saying if everyone was on equal terms AC would win. I love this guy.

The Cobra puts the bite on Dawg lol

 

[gooner]

This is the same Brailsfraud that when faced with a UCI rule to ensure fair competition by making illegal equipment that is not available to all competitors set up a bogus webpage where BC's gear is purportedly sold. The page gives no prices other than warning people they will be very high, gives no deliverary timeline other than warning that it will be indeterminate, and gives no way to order other than an e-mail address. Quotes people have managed to get for a helmet are $5000. Even people who have not balked at the prices, which are obviously made to dissuade anyone from ordering, have still not been able to order. Boardman reported that zero frames have been sold

This is clearly cheating. It was not a spur of the moment thing, like diving in soccer, It was pre-planned by the management of British Cycling.

By Brailsford's own words we can conclude he would be willing to cheat in other ways.

There are serial divers in football where it happens too much on a regular basis with certain players to say they do it on some sort of a spur of a moment thing. Ridiculous to say that about players like Drogba, Ronaldo, Pires and Bale who has a terrible reputation now for doing it consistently in the last couple of years. These are just some examples of players who know what they're doing in these situations.

I still wouldn't say they would cheat in other areas like doping in the same way you accuse Froome now based on what he did yesterday. No way would or could I draw that conclusion. And has Froome serial cheated to the level of yesterday's episode and the repetitiveness of the above mentioned?

 

[Berzin]

Hate to break it to all you grand conspiracy theorists, with your prognostications over new/undetectable drugs, UCI conspiracy with Sky, and whatever else have you, but Froome's attacks on the Ventoux were due to a motor, the same one Cancellara used and that Armstrong allegedly had access to back in 2001.

Yesterday's stage? No motor because some of the bikes were "checked" for UCI complicity of the 6.8 kilogram weight limit.

 

[spalco]

Well I always thought this was indicative of his character--certainly not afraid to lie to get what he wanted!

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...irst-home-cycling-faces-uphill-091543331.html



Impersonate an official to cheat his way into a race. Some role model!

Hahaha, you guys are getting more ridiculous by the day.

Maybe Froome rode the subway without buying a ticket some day also - burn him at the stake!

 

[BroDeal]

There are serial divers in football where it happens too much on a regular basis with certain players to say they do it on some sort of a spur of a moment thing. Ridiculous to say that about players like Drogba, Ronaldo, Pires and Bale who has a terrible reputation now for doing it consistently in the last couple of years. These are just some examples of players who know what they're doing in these situations.

I still wouldn't say they would cheat in other areas like doping in the same way you accuse Froome now based on what he did yesterday. No way would or could I draw that conclusion. And has Froome serial cheated to the level of yesterday's episode and the repetitiveness of the above mentioned?

I don't view diving as cheating. Of course I don't watch soccer so to me it seems like basketball, where players strategically foul each other, especially in the last five minutes of the game.

Brailsfraud circumventing the rules on having all equipment available to all competitors is cheating. That is on a whole different level than fouls in ball sports. Feeding after being told not to is another example of a team culture that will flagrantly violate the rules, even as they are being warned by officials. Then there is Froome hacking into e-mail accounts to perpetrate identity theft. This shows a man of low character willing to violate the law. A man like that would have no problem doping to get what he wanted.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Every ****er has called Contador a doper. Calling him a doper does not make you reliable.

Well done, you completely missed the point.

 

[Bobito]

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.

The comparison with diving in football is not very good. First, in some countries many children are actually taught to dive. It does not explicitly violate any rule. It's a way of improving the odds. Also it is rarely sanctioned. I personally hate it, and teach my children not to do it, but it's really not clear that it's even against the rules (in practice).

What Froome did is more like what Luis Suarez did in the world cup. He knew it was against the rules, he knew what the penalty was, and he knew that he was willing to take that penalty to give his team a chance to win (for those that don't remember, he intercepted a goal with his hands, and was expelled, but his team advanced because of the play). It's clearly against the spirit of the competition, and it's done knowingly, weighing the small cost against the big potential benefit. If the penalty were 5 minutes, not 20 seconds, Froome would not have cheated the way he did.

It's gamesmanship, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[spalco]

I think a better comparison would be a defender grabbing an attackers shirt or intentionally committing an illegal tackle to prevent him from breaking through somewhere in midfield and collecting a yellow card for that. Something you see in almost literally every single match, and which is commonly accepted.

"Scoring" an intentional hand-goal or doing what Suarez did, is far more egregious than that.

 

[taiwan]

As I posted before, this value needs to be interpreted in the context of Grappe's model, which is described in the paper to which I linked.

Can't read the paper. Any chance you could explain why he would overestimate the difference when he has CFs real power files?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

@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!

Good post hog.

So, the Froomster had a bonk in 2008 on the lower slopes and loses 12 minutes. About a minute per kilometer. In 2013 the Froomster has a supposed bonk and loses a minute in 5 kilometer. Or was it 4? Well doesnt matter that much.

Marginal gains and stuff.

 

[Lanark]

Good post hog.

So, the Froomster had a bonk in 2008 on the lower slopes and loses 12 minutes. About a minute per kilometer. In 2013 the Froomster has a supposed bonk and loses a minute in 5 kilometer. Or was it 4? Well doesnt matter that much.

Marginal gains and stuff.

Funnily enough, that 51.13 was probably his most impressive climbing result before his transfroomation, while 40.56 is one of his least dominant performances of the season.

 

[Ferminal]

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17392

Though he'd probably beat Pellizotti's time if he did it today.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Funnily enough, that 51.13 was probably his most impressive climbing result before his transfroomation, while 40.56 is one of his least dominant performances of the season.

Funny enough, with yesterdays time he would have had the fastest time in 2011, with bonking. Climbing speeds are down again.

 

[Cimber]

He cheated with the food yesterday. I am sure thats not the only thing he is cheating with

 

[ebandit]

lucky 5

@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!

do you consider this to be proof? even though there is 5 years time difference
in different conditions

i don't believe froome bonked yesterday.......he may have been heading that way but he never went 'backwards'

Mark L

 

[Dazed and Confused]

do you consider this to be proof? even though there is 5 years time difference
in different conditions

i don't believe froome bonked yesterday.......he may have been heading that way but he never went 'backwards'

Mark L

Froome didn't bonk, Quintana and J-Rod stepped on the gas putting the powermeter in the red zone. If you want to pretend you are somewhat credible in the 3rd week, something needed to be done quickly.

It will be fun to see what Froome/Porte comes up with next.