Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[RownhamHill]

No one should be disputing that Froome's performances since 2011 have shown vast improvement.

To do so is just silly.

I don't think anyone is. . .

 

[Justinr]

I don't think anyone is. . .

Indeed and that has been your point all the way - and it has been a lonngggg way through some of the posts / counter posts.

And basically the other point you are making is that even though the data presents an improvement compared with everyone else there is nothing that scientifically says that has to be down to doping.

Just thought I'd summarise...

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Indeed and that has been your point all the way - and it has been a lonngggg way through some of the posts / counter posts.

And basically the other point you are making is that even though the data presents an improvement compared with everyone else there is nothing that scientifically says that has to be down to doping.

Just thought I'd summarise...

This is where the circle can't be squared though, as if (and it's a big if) Sky's Dr. Freeman is to be believed his blood values before and after the improvement were stable, how the hell did he improve by up to 20%? History tell us that such massive improvements are normally due to heavy EPO use and/or blood manipulation.

 

[RownhamHill]

Indeed and that has been your point all the way - and it has been a lonngggg way through some of the posts / counter posts.

And basically the other point you are making is that even though the data presents an improvement compared with everyone else there is nothing that scientifically says that has to be down to doping.

Just thought I'd summarise...

Yeah, point taken. Thanks for your patience.

 

[RownhamHill]

This is where the circle can't be squared though, as if (and it's a big if) Sky's Dr. Freeman is to be believed his blood values before and after the improvement were stable, how the hell did he improve by up to 20%? History tell us that such massive improvements are normally due to heavy EPO use and/or blood manipulation.

I don't think there is any evidence that he has improved his ftp by 20%. There's a theory based loosely on some numbers, but that's all it is.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I don't think there is any evidence that he has improved his ftp by 20%. There's a theory based loosely on some numbers, but that's all it is.

That's why I said up to.

 

[BYOP88]

I don't think there is any evidence that he has improved his ftp by 20%. There's a theory based loosely on some numbers, but that's all it is.

So you believe that Froome improved slightly while all the guys ahead of him all declined to Froome's pre Vuelta 2011 level?

 

[Justinr]

This is where the circle can't be squared though, as if (and it's a big if) Sky's Dr. Freeman is to be believed his blood values before and after the improvement were stable, how the hell did he improve by up to 20%? History tell us that such massive improvements are normally due to heavy EPO use and/or blood manipulation.

Hmm ... you had to take the lid off again didn't you!

Actually a point I haven't seen addressed (or maybe it has been some time back in much earlier posts) is what effect Bilharzia would have on the blood values that everyone tests (Hematocrit, red blood cells, etc.). I can't seem to find much info on it.

Yes its a blood parasite but does it knock the parameters that are tested for? If its doesn't then that would be an explanation as to why CFs blood values didn't shift as everyone says they must have done. If it does then we can rule that argument out.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Hmm ... you had to take the lid off again didn't you!

Actually a point I haven't seen addressed (or maybe it has been some time back in much earlier posts) is what effect Bilharzia would have on the blood values that everyone tests (Hematocrit, red blood cells, etc.). I can't seem to find much info on it.

Yes its a blood parasite but does it knock the parameters that are tested for? If its doesn't then that would be an explanation as to why CFs blood values didn't shift as everyone says they must have done. If it does then we can rule that argument out.

That's another potential thing that needs answering by Sky, what effect does bilharzia have on his passport readings. Again, if Freeman is to be believed, seemingly nothing. Not much of Froome's career makes sense from either he's doping or he's clean standpoint IMO.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Here's one of many papers on the effects of Bilharzia. It's a blood borne parasite, but its main effects are fibrosis of the liver and kidneys. It has no effect on hematocrit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21811643

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

I like TJay. Looks like a rider. Good win. It was too foggy to see anything but by all accounts the Dawg attacked.

 

[BYOP88]

TJVG winning just shows that cycling is now 1000000000000000000% clean. Mods shut down the clinic please.

USA USA USA USA!!!!!

 

[BYOP88]

I like TJay. Looks like a rider. Good win. It was too foggy to see anything but by all accounts the Dawg attacked.

and TJVG beat him just shows that cycling is now 1000000000000000000% clean. Mods shut down the clinic please.

USA USA USA USA!!!!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Perhaps he had no idea of his teammates doping when he celebrated his win, but it was you who brought him into this thread no me.

Actually Cobo was mentioned in the post above the one I made, and a couple of times on the previous page. So in fact neither of us brought him into the thread.

Piepoli and Riccò would be to Cobo's later Vuelta win as Dueñas and Pfannberger are to Froome's Tour win.

Indeed. Discrediting Cobo based on having rode with dopers and having had a huge performance jump is entirely incongruous with a position in support of Froome, since his mildly impressive 2008 Tour performances came with a shady team and his performance jump at the 2011 Vuelta is even bigger than El Bisonte's since El Bisonte at least showed he was in form in August.

Isn't that what you'd expect though of someone putting out numbers in training - you ask him to act as the main climbing domestique. Why else did Sky pick him for the Vuelta and ask him to ride the way he did if he wasn't doing something in training?

By most accounts the Vuelta was his last chance saloon, at least as far as Sky were concerned. I guess the expectation was for Löfkvist to take over mountain dom duty later in the race.

Absolutely, but isn't the surprise for Sky not that he started well with some 'good numbers' on the first mountain stages and time trial, but that he backed that up day after day with out any bad days in the entire race. Indeed, if Sky had been expecting the Vuelta performance wouldn't it have made more sense for them to flip leadership after the first time trial? And doesn't he claim his prior problems with bilharzia caused him fatigue - wouldn't the team's (wrong) expectation half way through the race that he wouldn't/couldn't 'keep it up' for the rest of the race be consistent with that past experience?

You would have thought so, but even if they didn't think he could win the race, you would have thought they could at least have promoted him to a free role rather than forcing him, in the maillot lidér, to domestique on La Manzaneda the day after the rest. That's more a problem for Sky's tactical inflexibility rather than the debate on Froome's relative capabilities though.

I bet they're still kicking themselves about the contract. But again, isn't Sky's action consistent with his performance up until then - someone who might have good numbers in training, and someone who might play a role as as GT dom, but also someone who was too inconsistent to take a risk on? He was described by the team as a 'rough diamond' in 2010, but obviously by summer of 2011 they'd concluded he was more rough than diamond - a conclusion they hastily changed post Vuelta. How he reached that consistency is the question at hand, but it's not necessarily inconceivable that he couldn't have shown any potential in training before then.

It's just that if he HAD showed that potential, and they could have him for a minimum PT wage domestique contract, since he wasn't likely to get much more from Garmin or Lampre, you'd have thought it was a no-brainer. I mean, "might play a role as a GT dom" is a pretty damning judgement for a guy who is now a terminator. But even if that was as far as it went, if he had the chance to be a good GT dom, he would still be of value to Sky in the same way as Lance having American helpers and T-Mobile having Germans lining up to help Ullrich were to the audiences. And the thing is, if those numbers suggested "might play a role as a GT dom", I can understand the reluctance to re-sign him. But they're talking about numbers that justify "making former GT winners look like utter amateurs". That is a whole other level.

This is silly. What if Sky posted some numbers on their website or twitter. Regardless of what was in those numbers would you believe them at this point? The point is, whatever he'd done in training he never showed it on the road, and the team (in the summer of 2011) had obviously lost faith that he ever would. Posting training numbers now achieves what?

Posting them now would surely achieve nothing. But if they'd published them back in the 2011-12 off-season or something, it might have been of use. "Yes, he was this good, but he's been blighted by injuries and illnesses. We know it looked crazy, but if you see these training numbers from 2010 you can see he had the potential to put out x number of W/kg or had y VAM in training." - it may not have convinced everyone, and sure just like with the blood values etc. you'd have people with no expertise judging on them, but it would have shown the transparency Sky have claimed but not shown, and while accusations would certainly not have gone away (especially in light of what has happened since), they might have assuaged some doubters and limited people's incredulity before it became uncontrollable by their PR.

After all, remember JTL saying back in March 2012 when interviewed, "I know people will have their suspicions" - at least he showed some self-awareness, whereas Sky's reactions to being accused of doping in July 2012 made it look like they were genuinely unprepared for anybody questioning them.

And Cobo is now a GT winner! And exactly who are these people calling BS on Cobo? As I remember from the time you were won of the vocal people calling BS on him! Personally I'm open to the possibility that both Cobo and Froome were clean in that Vuelta, but I can't speak to anyone else.

Cobo is almost always a good example in this thread, because more or less nobody believed in him, and yet there's no more against his name than there is Wiggins or Froome, and his decline since that Vuelta triumph has made him a figure of fun. To be consistent, those who defend Sky really ought to be similarly defending Cobo - but are they? After all, if the peloton got cleaner in 2011 and that justifies Froome's miracle improvement, surely it could justify Cobo's too? If getting over illness justifies Froome's miracle improvement, surely it could justify Cobo's too? If having a past on dodgy teams and making a miracle improvement is not a justification for suspecting Froome, surely it is not a justification for suspecting Cobo either?

And we spiral out, keep going, spiral out, keep going.

 

[gooner]

I like TJay. Looks like a rider. Good win. It was too foggy to see anything but by all accounts the Dawg attacked.

Yeah 2km to go he went for it.

TJ has a good TT in him and with his climbing here and in Oman, his chances now warrant a lot more attention.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Indeed and that has been your point all the way - and it has been a lonngggg way through some of the posts / counter posts.

And basically the other point you are making is that even though the data presents an improvement compared with everyone else there is nothing that scientifically says that has to be down to doping.

Just thought I'd summarise...

Yes, and by your demands for scientific evidence, we'll be waiting for the SOL to kick in and a forced, strategic admission of doping. AND STILL NEVER TESTED POSITIVE.

 

[gillan1969]

Indeed and that has been your point all the way - and it has been a lonngggg way through some of the posts / counter posts.

And basically the other point you are making is that even though the data presents an improvement compared with everyone else there is nothing that scientifically says that has to be down to doping.

Just thought I'd summarise...

are you actually being serious? this is pro cycling....

its like a 9 stone weakling in june turning up in July 5 stone heavier a ripped to shreds and winning mr universe...if it does happen we all know why (well apart from you obviously).....Wiggins was a joke, Froome is beyond a joke...

 

[TANK91]

Guess who's back o yes hes back Froomey's back tell a friend.


Froome will destry all in Romandie check out for his super Ventoux dig. Getting beat by a few is even better, afterall he is better than TJVG and Dan Martin, Contador far better shape yet but putting big time in.

 

[TANK91]

Libertine clearly Sky new he was riding well Jesus man he done well in Suisse that year really he shown himself on the rise.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Guess who's back o yes hes back Froomey's back tell a friend.


Froome will destry all in Romandie check out for his super Ventoux dig. Getting beat by a few is even better, afterall he is better than TJVG and Dan Martin, Contador far better shape yet but putting big time in.

 

[Justinr]

Yes, and by your demands for scientific evidence, we'll be waiting for the SOL to kick in and a forced, strategic admission of doping. AND STILL NEVER TESTED POSITIVE.

Hmm not sure I've ever demanded scientific evidence - if I have feel free to point me to the post. And I have never used the 'not tested positive' line either.

What I have said amongst other things is:

1. I believe CF is clean. I'm entitled to that belief / view.
2. Its harder for believers to prove he is clean since its like trying to prove a negative. If he tests positive then you can say he has doped - if he doesn't then you cant say with certainty that he hasn't.
3. If in 10 years time all samples have been retested for known and (as yet) unknown drugs / methods and they come back clean then I think there would be some justification in believers saying to non-believers that you cant just churn out the "you cant use the never tested positive argument" to us.

 

[Justinr]

are you actually being serious? this is pro cycling....

its like a 9 stone weakling in june turning up in July 5 stone heavier a ripped to shreds and winning mr universe...if it does happen we all know why (well apart from you obviously).....Wiggins was a joke, Froome is beyond a joke...

Actually I was just summarising what he was saying which had been the subject of many long and rambling posts from both sides.

 

[TANK91]

Hang on, wasn't it you yesterday who gleefully declared that froomes doubters have no case because the evidence against him would be thrown out of court in a legal system.

And here you are slinging mud at cobo for being on the same team as dopers?

How exactly do you think that evidence would play in the legal system?

It's mindblowing how you just totally change standards whenever it suits you while patronizingly throwing insults, ridiculous generalizations and smileys at everyone else.

The shocking inconsistencies you display on here regularly do your side absolutely no favours.

Ps it's funny how some sky fans have not forgiven cobo for beating froome at the vuelta. Reminds me of Armstrong fans who complained that contador was doping or later contador defenders complaining about froome. The same total inability to remain objective and pathetic tendency to throw insults at anyone who isn't willing to accommodate the massive suspension of logic that accompanies the internet venting processes.

Your argument would hold some weight if Froome was flying in 08, Cobo and whole team was disgusting thats not a slur they had 3 guys doing what they please attacking from far out. Everyone has a dig at Cobo just like everyone does at Froome(even moreso) but Cobo is just funny because he just went boom after the win Froome has not. Cobo shown nowthing since, zero.


Were talking about Ricco and Peopili lol, yet you think its same thing HAHA jokes on you.

 

[TANK91]

Ha ha it was just that song i was messing around, he impressed today both guys look like be a big show. To lose that time yesterday and then have another dig today and lose on a harder stage(suits Froome more though i will admit thanyday) he lose what 5 seconds. That is very good look at it this way Contador is clearly better than last year and Froome is worst he want get beat by alot of others else would he, so surely more improvement from CF. That is surely a fair statement La Flo

 

[roundabout]

Juanjo Cobo has never been named in an investigation, never tested positive, and has a medically confirmed justification for his fluctuating performance. All you have are some teammates testing positive in 2008 and wildly differing performance levels. If you're happy to sling mud at Cobo, you should surely be pretty accepting of others slinging mud at Froome, right?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1041130&postcount=5820

I would honestly, no word of a lie, rather put my hand in the fire for Juanjo Cobo than for Chris Froome.

I hope Cobo finally tests positive to put an end to posts like this however tongue-in-cheek they might be.

There.