Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[del1962]

Couldn't the same be said about you and your confidence that Froome is clean. What proof do you have that he's clean? Never tested positive isn't a valid reply.

I don't know that he is clean nor do I have any proof, of course, but I don't think he is doping ok. I find the reason given for his later development plausible.

I always say that the burden of proof should be on those accusing of guilt, UK Justice system and all that, they may not be think like that over the pond though

 

[the sceptic]

True. In that instance Porte rode everyone off their wheels then Froome went.

This time around Froome sorta went with 2k(?) to go and sorta went up and down. Then couldn't follow. Like how he looked at the 2012 Vuelta.

But it's cold. Not much to take out of today's stage. Tomorrow maybe but he doesn't look like Ventoux Froome. Or Oman Froome.

Over to MishC for the explanation maybe his brother got Badzhilla again?

It was a very windy stage today. I suspect strong headwind.

Even Horner finished way back.

 

[red_flanders]

Love it how you feel so confident in that, if no real evidence comes out in ten years time will you still be so confident.

Yes, I will. I and many others have seen all we need to see to understand what's been going on. Not getting caught or testing positive (proof, not "evidence") is not part of how I evaluate who I think is doping. For the millionth time, there is a ton of real evidence that he's a doper, but there is no proof. It's a really important distinction and a big difference.

The point of my comments, and they were addressed to particular comments which I quoted, is that it's unproductive to argue with people who have already determined what they think of Froome. They have already seen enough to determine whether they think he's doping or not, so creating "what if" scenarios regarding his performance (if he'd hammer everyone you'd think he was doping, if he doesn't you'd think he was doping...) really adds nothing.

Yes. No matter what Froome does from here on out or since the beginning of last year's ridiculous march of victories, people have already decided he's doping. So of course no matter what he does, it will be examined from that point of view. Of course. The point is that very few people are on the fence about it, and the bulk of the conversation for those people is going to be around "will he get caught", "has the testing caught up", "will the new UCI regime protect or prosecute him", etc.

So correct, it doesn't matter what his performances are from here on out. He's logged a litany of obviously enhance performances, and the only interesting thing is how long will he get away with it. In my opinion.

 

[red_flanders]

I don't know that he is clean nor do I have any proof, of course, but I don't think he is doping ok. I find the reason given for his later development plausible.

I always say that the burden of proof should be on those accusing of guilt, UK Justice system and all that, they may not be think like that over the pond though

Or we simply understand that the concepts of "assumption of innocence" and "burden of proof" are legal concepts designed to protect people's liberty against unjust prosecution, imprisonment, capital punishment or other sanctions. They are not concepts which apply to opinion, discussion or internet forums.

 

[del1962]

Yes, I will. I and many others have seen all we need to see to understand what's been going on. Not getting caught or testing positive (proof, not "evidence") is not part of how I evaluate who I think is doping. For the millionth time, there is a ton of real evidence that he's a doper, but there is no proof. It's a really important distinction and a big difference.

The point of my comments, and they were addressed to particular comments which I quoted, is that it's unproductive to argue with people who have already determined what they think of Froome. They have already seen enough to determine whether they think he's doping or not, so creating "what if" scenarios regarding his performance (if he'd hammer everyone you'd think he was doping, if he doesn't you'd think he was doping...) really adds nothing.

Yes. No matter what Froome does from here on out or since the beginning of last year's ridiculous march of victories, people have already decided he's doping. So of course no matter what he does, it will be examined from that point of view. Of course. The point is that very few people are on the fence about it, and the bulk of the conversation for those people is going to be around "will he get caught", "has the testing caught up", "will the new UCI regime protect or prosecute him", etc.

So correct, it doesn't matter what his performances are from here on out. He's logged a litany of obviously enhance performances, and the only interesting thing is how long will he get away with it. In my opinion.

I know what your opinion is and I agree how he performs over the next few years is irrelvent,

what I am talking about is if no real evidence such as people saying they saw him doping, supplied him with dope, failed tests etc, if nothoing like that comes out over the next ten years will you still be so confident in your accusations.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Yes, strong, biting wind.
The bad news is that it will be windy but much colder, tomorrow; not exactly Kenya.

Quite funny watching Movistar's attempt at a Sky train.
Two thirds of the way up the climb, they looked around, saw they hadn't dropped anybody and gave up.
Not that Qunitana looked much better than Froome.
Talking of Colombians, Betancur has abandoned apparently, (whistles and walks away)..................

 

[BYOP88]

Yes, strong, biting wind.
The bad news is that it will be windy but much colder, tomorrow; not exactly Kenya.

Quite funny watching Movistar's attempt at a Sky train.
Two thirds of the way up the climb, they looked around, saw they hadn't dropped anybody and gave up.
Not that Qunitana looked much better than Froome.
Talking of Colombians, Betancur has abandoned apparently, (whistles and walks away)..................

Best post it in the AG2R thread then. I'm sure the debate between the believers and non-believers will fill up maybe 1 or 2 pages.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

best post it in the ag2r thread then. I'm sure the debate between the believers and non-believers will fill up maybe 1 or 2 posts.:d

f.t.f.y - y.w.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Some thoughts:

1. TdF is warm, like Africa. Snow not usually what you train in there over summer.
2. One stage does not a fallen hero make. I'm waiting till August before judging Froome performances for 2014, particularly given the resurgence of a couple of other riders.
3. Lack of Porte may be impacting Froome? They seem pretty tight.
4. If Porte's absence is affecting Froome, it would hint that he's no Contador / Lemond in terms of mental strength.

 

[red_flanders]

I know what your opinion is and I agree how he performs over the next few years is irrelvent,

what I am talking about is if no real evidence such as people saying they saw him doping, supplied him with dope, failed tests etc, if nothoing like that comes out over the next ten years will you still be so confident in your accusations.

Asked and answered. Yes.

Why? Because again I take exception to the idea that there's no "real evidence" at this point. There is more than enough real evidence for me to come to my own conclusion.

This is different than the threshold needed to sanction.

 

[BYOP88]

ftfy. Yw.

Danke!!!!!!

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

3. Lack of Porte may be impacting Froome? They seem pretty tight.
4. If Porte's absence is affecting Froome, it would hint that he's no Contador / Lemond in terms of mental strength.

Didn't stop him from winning the mountain stage in Tirreno last year

 

[thehook]

Last season Froome/Porte were hammering everyone ALL season. Froome was a beast in Oman. Just go back and look at the attack he used to win that race. Today, not anywhere near the level of Oman. Or last season in the early races. Now SKY rides are DNS/DNF ,JTL& Henao.

Now if you watch todays climb. It sure seemed to me not to be a tough mountain. Maybe between 2&3k it jumped to 8%? What would happen if he pulled those 2 attacks at 4/5k to go on a Big climb?......CYA Purito & Alberto way up the road!

We will see tomorrow?

Nah nothing going on here?

Marginal Gains?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Froome needs to buy a wig too! Whilst Wiggans haircut is crap it's better than the 'Island' that Froome sports.

He is auditioning for a spot with David Letterman.

 

[hfer07]

Didn't stop him from winning the mountain stage in Tirreno last year

correct- It was back then when SERGIO HENAO was trashing the field

 

[Ferminal]

He must be really out of shape, that climb was perfect for him given his amazing anaerobic capacity.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

If your lower back is bvggered, you can't put down maximum anaerobic power.

 

[Rollthedice]

correct- It was back then when SERGIO HENAO was trashing the field

In Oman, Froome show on the green mountain was set up by the same Henao.

 

[Ferminal]

If your lower back is bvggered, you can't put down maximum anaerobic power.

Didn't see much Ferrari endorsed turbo cadence or head drop either.

 

[GuyIncognito]

No idea what your on about mate

Sorry, I took it from your post that we were discussing our reactions to fantasy events

 

[RownhamHill]

Thank you for the response.

However, I don't understand how the Bilharzia could have had this effect. According to the NIH (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230106/) Chris must have had a chronic infection; especially if it lasted three years (the length of time his performance was suppressed by my analysis).

Chronic Bilharzia manifests as either urinary or intestinal schistosomiasis. Considering that Chris hasn't suffered hepatic fibrosis (liver damage - typically irreversible) and nobody has mentioned renal pathology (kidney problems), he must have had a fairly non-severe (relatively speaking!) infection. Praziquantel was also successful at treating the infection, suggesting a minor pathology.

So what I don't get is that Chris had a chronic infection for at least three years (that's as far as my analysis goes due to lack of data pre 2008), and didn't suffer any of the typical symptoms (liver, kidney problems) other than fatigue, which is actually associated the acute version of the infection and is called Katayama syndrome. If Chris had Katayama syndrome, he would also have likely had a cough, headache, fever, bloody pee, bloody stool or other symptoms.

Anyways, I don't understand how Chris had Bilharzia for three years and only suffered minor fatigue that lowered his FTP by 20%.

John Swanson

Hi John. When you posted your analysis I posted a query about your conclusions which you never answered. As I understood your data you'd observed the relative times between froome and 'the winner' of each time trial contracting, and then concluded that this was due exclusively to Froome speeding up/increasing absolute power. I've subsequently seen you report this as established fact.

What I was questioning was the basis on which you ruled out any alternative explanations - as the very simplest example, if 'the winner's' time had on average reduced by 4.7 seconds in that period then you would expect to observe the same contraction in relative times with a 0% increase in Froome's performance. There could also be a multitude of other confounding factors in the data (for example Froome's form, motivation (not every domestique races every tt at 100%) and so on). This is not a complicated point in all honesty.

In the spirit of your user name could you respond to this peer review and explain the basis on which you have ruled out any other possible interpretation of the data set than the one that, frankly, seems to suit your agenda? Thanks.

 

[Justinr]

True. In that instance Porte rode everyone off their wheels then Froome went.

This time around Froome sorta went with 2k(?) to go and sorta went up and down. Then couldn't follow. Like how he looked at the 2012 Vuelta.

But it's cold. Not much to take out of today's stage. Tomorrow maybe but he doesn't look like Ventoux Froome. Or Oman Froome.

Over to MishC for the explanation maybe his brother got Badzhilla again?

Hmm - maybe a few weeks of a bad back and not able to train properly? And before anyone jumps in - yes I know he has been training, and in the snow, but no-one on here knows how hard (or not) he has been able to train so any comments either way are pure speculation.

 

[Justinr]

Couldn't the same be said about you and your confidence that Froome is clean? What proof do you have that he's clean? Never tested positive isn't a valid reply.

The same as the proof that other people have that he's doping - ie none.

No-one knows for sure, however the disbelievers do have a slight advantage : if he tests positive you can have your moment and say "I told you so". The believers don't get the chance for that - they can't prove a negative and I can bet that if in 10 years he hasn't been found positive the disbelievers will still be "yeh yeh, cant use the never tested positive line..."

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hi John. When you posted your analysis I posted a query about your conclusions which you never answered. As I understood your data you'd observed the relative times between froome and 'the winner' of each time trial contracting, and then concluded that this was due exclusively to Froome speeding up/increasing absolute power. I've subsequently seen you report this as established fact.

What I was questioning was the basis on which you ruled out any alternative explanations - as the very simplest example, if 'the winner's' time had on average reduced by 4.7 seconds in that period then you would expect to observe the same contraction in relative times with a 0% increase in Froome's performance.

Froome's per km time went down. How does his time per km go down (ie speed increase) with 0% increase in performance?

 

[sniper]

I think in fairness I don't even need to say much.
The last few pages, the responses to questions, the questions themselves have spoken volumes.
The thing about the truth is how consistent and straightforward it tends to be.

digger,
what happened to your twitter account?