Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[roundabout]

1500m improved by 3.5 seconds. 10000 improved by 21. Scales up well.

Edit: my bad, was looking at the 5k times

 

[pastronef]

I discovered Froome's secret

he owns the RING

http://instagram.com/p/cdsiL8mxmT/#

 

[mikeoneill]

The interesting thing about the 90s 5k and 10k times saw a comparitively much faster set of times than than 80s times in comparison with 1500m

1500 went a bit crazy too down from 3-29 to 3-26

epomorcelli kicked it off

el g was bananas on every ped known to mankind

epo hgh test. insulin you name it

 

[tweak37]

Many trainers made an impact. Some for different reasons than others.

Are you telling me Sassi just told guys to "ride around" back in the 90's?

Because you're starting actually you have already started to not make any sense. But maybe that's your objective

Ok, let's try it again: do you think that the way riders trained in 1985 (I go back another 5 years because apparently if I say 1990 people think I'm talking about Armstrong) is not in any significant way different than the way they train now? If so, can we have a decent discussion about it?

It took the Armstrong believers 10 years or more to get to the "level playing field" argument. Poor Froome hasn't even made it a month and his loyal are already there. Pretty telling about your arguing.

This isn't the level playing field argument. It is very much possible that Froome has better doping than others. All I'm saying is that by the same logic it is also possible he has better training and whatnot.

I have to say I resent the fact that you put me in a box as a "Froome believer", simply because I argue against those who claim to know that Froome is dirty. I don't know. I can see arguments for both sides. Froome isn't Armstrong (that I did know).

We have not seen any details of sky's 'advanced' training that gives them 4+ minutes over 3 weeks at the TdF. Have you?

No. But I haven't seen any details of a doping program either.

 

[thehog]

Ok, let's try it again: do you think that the way riders trained in 1985 (I go back another 5 years because apparently if I say 1990 people think I'm talking about Armstrong) is not in any significant way different than the way they train now? If so, can we have a decent discussion about it?


.

29 years ago? That's a long time.

I was doing motor pacing like Sky do when I was 17 in 1983.

I was doing intervals on the flat, on the track and up any hill I could find.

On Sudays I went for long rides 100km+.

Did team time trial training.

Most of the stuff I got from books at the time. Sports journals from the local library.

When I rode with the AIS development squad we did all this and more. In fact a lot of what we did mimicked the Eastern Europeans - as they were the yardstick in terms of science.

When I rode in UK and Europe they were doing crazy stuff with diets that we'd had never thought of. And the Robert Millar came along and started eating nuts and raisins and nothing else.

I started drinking green sludge for a while. Took baking soda and cr@pped too much on hot days.

One guy I knew had his mum doing his homework for him so he could train more.

I trained in the dark, in the cold in the hot and sat in saunas.

Then when I was old enough "they" injected cortisone into my knees and trained harder and longer.

LeMond was the biggest advocate in the 80s for not doing LSD rides. Everyone had their own nuance of training and their own ideas. Everyone was pushing the ideals at the time.

They weren't just all going out and riding like you stated.


So lets have that decent discussion.

 

[the sceptic]

but where is the evidence and proof that sky have better training methods?

 

[thehog]

So what's different about today?

Not a lot. Better data and logistics. More accurate data I should say. And much simpler to get your results.

Blood doping in the 80s required a sophisticated setup.

The Eastern Europeans would do it at home before the Olympics in a lab.

Lasse Viren talked about his blood doping openly. He was proud of it.

Whats different? Sky use CO doping and pump cortisone like I did.

Cycling didn't just grow a brain and say "hey let's stop doping and use science instead"

They just keep stepping around the borders of what's legal and what doesn't get you caught.

Go to any junior race or sports development centre. They're all sitting around chatting about different ways to get the "edge".

Nothing's changed. Froome is clear evidence of that.

 

[oldcrank]

but where is the evidence and proof that sky have better training methods?

Two straight Tour de France victories!

 

[pastronef]

So what's different about today?

Not a lot. Better data and logistics. More accurate data I should say. And much simpler to get your results.

Blood doping in the 80s required a sophisticated setup.

The Eastern Europeans would do it at home before the Olympics in a lab.

Lasse Viren talked about his blood doping openly. He was proud of it.

Whats different? Sky use CO doping and pump cortisone like I did.

Cycling didn't just grow a brain and say "hey let's stop doping and use science instead"

They just keep stepping around the borders of what's legal and what doesn't get you caught.

Go to any junior race or sports development centre. They're all sitting around chatting about different ways to get the "edge".
Nothing's changed. Froome is clear evidence of that.

I like what I read. thank you Hog

where's the clapping hands gif?

 

[BroDeal]

my sister's cousin's brother's aunt's son makes $450 an hour on the Internet working part-time from home...i did not believe it until I saw the receipt...he bought himself a BMW 5-series and cleared his mortgage in 22 months...you can too.

Another thing more believable than Froome.

 

[BroDeal]

This isn't the level playing field argument. It is very much possible that Froome has better doping than others. All I'm saying is that by the same logic it is also possible he has better training and whatnot.

You are not using any sort of logic. Point to a successful rider in the last fifteen years who was not aware of atlitude training and simply rode around at a pace he felt like for the day.

Just when did you start following road cycling? July, 2012? This is bone freaking idiocy of the lowest order.

 

[mewmewmew13]

You are not using any sort of logic. Point to a successful rider in the last fifteen years who was not aware of atlitude training and simply rode around at a pace he felt like for the day.

Just when did you start following road cycling? July, 2012? This is bone freaking idiocy of the lowest order.

Froome taking the place of HWNMNBS silliness

...respect is in order...35 posts and rapidly rising

 

[Alpechraxler]

Sky must pay some good money to their sciencists. They could find themselves winning the nobelprize by publishing the winning formula.

 

[thehog]

my sister's cousin's brother's aunt's son makes $450 an hour on the Internet working part-time from home...i did not believe it until I saw the receipt...he bought himself a BMW 5-series and cleared his mortgage in 22 months...you can too.

Another thing more believable than Froome.

There's no natural way you can improve 10-15-20%.

None.

What Froome did at the 2011 Vuelta was doping.

The explanation is Badzhilla was keeping him down. But it's simply not possible to improve the way he did.

2013 was even more ridiculous. When he did on Ventoux was extraterrestrial.

It makes good copy to say the Europeans are still stuck in their old ways I training. But funny thing is those crazy Euros have been stuck in their old training methods since Armstrong told us this back in 99.

You think those Euros would wake up and start interval training

If you want to improve by 10% or more. Dope.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Sky must pay some good money to their sciencists. They could find themselves winning the nobelprize by publishing the winning formula.

Well you might be right...but they do seem to be leaking their secrets drip by drip

 

[MatParker117]

So what's different about today?

Not a lot. Better data and logistics. More accurate data I should say. And much simpler to get your results.

Blood doping in the 80s required a sophisticated setup.

The Eastern Europeans would do it at home before the Olympics in a lab.

Lasse Viren talked about his blood doping openly. He was proud of it.

Whats different? Sky use CO doping and pump cortisone like I did.

Cycling didn't just grow a brain and say "hey let's stop doping and use science instead"

They just keep stepping around the borders of what's legal and what doesn't get you caught.

Go to any junior race or sports development centre. They're all sitting around chatting about different ways to get the "edge".

Nothing's changed. Froome is clear evidence of that.

Maybe Sky tried Physics instead of Chemistry.

 

[thehog]

Maybe Sky tried Physics instead of Chemistry.

....or bullsh1t?

 

[Alpechraxler]

plagiarism of the 1930 nobelprize

 

[pmcg76]

Ok, let's try it again: do you think that the way riders trained in 1985 (I go back another 5 years because apparently if I say 1990 people think I'm talking about Armstrong) is not in any significant way different than the way they train now? If so, can we have a decent discussion about it?



This isn't the level playing field argument. It is very much possible that Froome has better doping than others. All I'm saying is that by the same logic it is also possible he has better training and whatnot.

I have to say I resent the fact that you put me in a box as a "Froome believer", simply because I argue against those who claim to know that Froome is dirty. I don't know. I can see arguments for both sides. Froome isn't Armstrong (that I did know).



No. But I haven't seen any details of a doping program either.

You are seriously mixed up here. How does 1990 mean Armstrong when he was an 18yo amateur riding his first full season on the road. If you say 2000 then that means Armstrong, 1990 would be LeMond but tbh I have no idea what you are on about anymore when you cannot get dates and figures correct.

 

[tweak37]

You are not using any sort of logic. Point to a successful rider in the last fifteen years who was not aware of atlitude training and simply rode around at a pace he felt like for the day.

Stijn Devolder comes to mind. But that's not the point.
Anyway when I say intuitive training I don't mean they didn't think about it or planned anything. Or didn't get help from their sport director or entourage. But it was amateur hour for the main part of the peloton. That Moser, Lemond and others were exceptions, I have no problem to believe that. In fact, in only corroborates my point: some are ahead, there is a general evolution, training methods matter.
You should read up on the lotto team for example, which is an interesting team because it (or the structure at least) is more than 25 years old. For a long time they were behind, not only qua doping but also qua training and general support for the riders. They started catch up in 1997, 1998 and even more so around 2000.

Just when did you start following road cycling? July, 2012? This is bone freaking idiocy of the lowest order.

Totally uncalled for if you ask me... I do not condemn Froome so I must be an idiot and new to cycling? Nice.

 

[tweak37]

You are seriously mixed up here. How does 1990 mean Armstrong when he was an 18yo amateur riding his first full season on the road. If you say 2000 then that means Armstrong, 1990 would be LeMond but tbh I have no idea what you are on about anymore when you cannot get dates and figures correct.

My point is that there was an evolution of professionalization and scientification of training methods starting maybe somewhere in the late 80s but reaching the whole peloton during the 90s (and still continuing in the 00s). Or in other words: there is a big difference between the training habits and methods of the peloton of 1990 and the peloton of 2013.
So I'm not talking about Armstrong whatsoever. When I said 1990, some people thought I was talking about Armstrong and Ulrich, don't ask me why.

Why are you talking about riders from the 80s when Froome is beating up on guys and their times who were doped to the eyeballs as recently as 5-10 years.

There is no doubt training has improved considerably which is why I disagree with the notion of holding up LeMond as some sort of limit of what is possible clean. I personally believe there are probably quite a few current guys who were less talented than LeMond but with modern training techniques/equipment etc are better than LeMond.

It was in the 90s that specialised coaches and doctors started working in cycling, unfortunately they also were the purveyors of the drugs of choice at the time. I still believe that guys like Ferrari, Cecchini, Sassi also brought a high level of training knowledge to cycling which also helped athletes improve along with the EPO. What I don't get is these guys now being classed as clueless in favour of people like Tim Kerrison.

Ah, at least someone agrees with me. I'm only talking about 80s guys to show that it was actually possible to gain a lot from better training methods. So maybe, just maybe, it could be possible today too.

 

[the sceptic]

this whole argument is so dumb and pointless. Just another skybot attempt at ruining the thread for 20 pages.

 

[tweak37]

this whole argument is so dumb and pointless. Just another skybot attempt at ruining the thread for 20 pages.

If you're not interested in the argument why bother? People claim that it is possible that Froome has access to special doping, but that it is not possible that he has an edge in other areas. I've given a reasonable argument against that, after which some people to my surprise contested that anything significant has changed about training in cycling in the past 20-25 years. I think this could prove to be a quite interesting discussion (some interesting posts in this regard I will answer later). As a reward I've been called dumb, idiotic, irrational, skybot, Froome follower and who knows what else.

 

[BroDeal]

Totally uncalled for if you ask me... I do not condemn Froome so I must be an idiot and new to cycling? Nice.

Your bullsh!t argument is what is idiotic. That you continue to push this idiocy reflects on you. As I requested, name one top pro in the last fifteen years that used the "just ride lots" training plan. Name on who did not use structured training. Name one who was unaware of altitude training. Your argument is idiotic.

Here is a couple of clues for you. SRM was founded in 1986. Tudor Bompa's book on periodization was published in 1983.

Answer the question. When DID you start following cycling?

 

[thehog]

As a reward I've been called dumb, idiotic, irrational, skybot, Froome follower and who knows what else.

Had anyone called you BPC, LauraLyn or Jocuim yet?