• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 400 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 25, 2012
268
0
0
It seems I’ve ****ed off the entire Spanish nation by something I didn’t say #FML

Apparently I made a comment about Contador because of his performance on Monday...

I didn’t make any reference to Contador, nor did I intend to. I was on an overnight flight on Monday.

To the Spanish media trying to turn this into something it’s not… you should be ashamed of yourselves.
maybe it was Valverde she was talking about then?
 
If there would be nothing suspect, I wouldn't suspect him in the first place
After years of entire pelotons lying to everyone's face, I expect the clean hero himself to prove he is clean in every way possible - not the other way around
For example, after last year's Tour, he coulda shoulda done a VO2Max test with as much media attention as possible and say "see, I DO have a stunningly high VO2Max"

I am willing to believe the guy is clean
My knowledge just tells me he isn't
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Huh? :confused:
Can you read my post again, and then may comment on the content (or not)... Thx in advance. :)
I did:

What if Froome complies to all your wishes and releases his data from Barlo, UCI "school", Sky-pre-&-after-Vuelta2011?
Assume there would be nothing suspect in his data, would the hate stop? Would there be anything different?
Hence: no change.

Suspect would be his 1 hour power jumping the 20% it has needed to, to go from groupetto hubbard to GT conqueror.

Unless you have some other magical cupcake pooping unicorn "nothing suspect in his data" explanation for his sudden and rather miraculous change in performance since pre-Vuelta 2011 to now.

I'll read and respond to the content, again, if so.
 
Feb 24, 2014
270
0
0
Can anyone out there who is not block by @michellecound cut and paste the tweets so we can keep track of what she is saying or ranting...
 
Jul 7, 2013
937
0
0
deeno1975 said:
Can anyone out there who is not block by @michellecound cut and paste the tweets so we can keep track of what she is saying or ranting...
lol so you are the guy posting about contador's penis ?
 
Feb 24, 2014
270
0
0
EnacheV said:
lol so you are the guy posting about contador's penis ?
No, not me, to be fair that kind of sh1te adds nothing to the debate. I'm all for discussion/debate but personal insults is not on. Pity some dumb asses ruin it all and make it look like anyone you doubts Froome is a loon.
 
Aug 9, 2012
1,719
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Much hate here...
What if Froome complies to all your wishes and releases his data from Barlo, UCI "school", Sky-pre-&-after-Vuelta2011?
Assume there would be nothing suspect in his data, would the hate stop? Would there be anything different?
A big fat NO. It´s a lose-lose situation for him, no matter what he does, people would still find something suspect to fulfil their prejudice...
Good post! He can never prove he is clean, someone will always find something they think is suspect and harp on about it.

It's better to leave that to the experts, and hope they aren't corrupt or incompetent.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
ToreBear said:
Good post! He can never prove he is clean, someone will always find something they think is suspect and harp on about it.

It's better to leave that to the experts, and hope they aren't corrupt or incompetent.
For the record: analysing data as simple as power files is easy. If you believe Brailsford's claim that it takes an expert then ...


anyway. It doesn't.

Blood profiles not that much more difficult.
 
ToreBear said:
Good post! He can never prove he is clean, someone will always find something they think is suspect and harp on about it.

It's better to leave that to the experts, and hope they aren't corrupt or incompetent.
Transforming from a slightly-above-average talented young rider to best-GT-rider-in-the-world-by-a-mile without explanation is not "just something"
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Much hate here...
What if Froome complies to all your wishes and releases his data from Barlo, UCI "school", Sky-pre-&-after-Vuelta2011?
Assume there would be nothing suspect in his data, would the hate stop? Would there be anything different?
A big fat NO. It´s a lose-lose situation for him, no matter what he does, people would still find something suspect to fulfil their prejudice...
Ask yourself the same question re: Horner.

Would you be convinced he's clean?

Not a chance. So why do you expect that we should for froome?
 
Aug 9, 2012
1,719
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
For the record: analysing data as simple as power files is easy. If you believe Brailsford's claim that it takes an expert then ...


anyway. It doesn't.

Blood profiles not that much more difficult.
I disagree. An expert would rule out all other explanations before concluding. An amateur would just jump to the conclusion that seems more likely.

I respect your knowledge on the subject, but I think you are underestimating the complexity of the Human organism, and how little is actually known about it's function. Thats for example why the biopassport requires a group of experts to agree on something. Had it been easy a computer could do it.

This is also why we see so few biopassport cases, they are extremely difficult to interpret, and then prove. The same observed data can have many different explanations that rule each other out.

As for what Brailsford says and doesn't say, I don't really follow his statements. I agree with him that it takes an expert though(if that is what he said). Though I would add it takes several experts.

If me believing something similar as Brailsford is an indication of me being wrong then, Houston we have a problem.

Though power files I don't have much opinion on, so I can't say much about that.
 
Aug 9, 2012
1,719
0
0
Gung Ho Gun said:
Transforming from a slightly-above-average talented young rider to best-GT-rider-in-the-world-by-a-mile without explanation is not "just something"
Could it be you are unable to see what is talented and what is not at a young age?

Could it be that all of the best GT riders in the world where above average talented young riders at some stage?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Much hate here...
What if Froome complies to all your wishes and releases his data from Barlo, UCI "school", Sky-pre-&-after-Vuelta2011?
Assume there would be nothing suspect in his data, would the hate stop? Would there be anything different?
A big fat NO. It´s a lose-lose situation for him, no matter what he does, people would still find something suspect to fulfil their prejudice...
No one can prove they're clean, but Froome and Sky can at least walk the walk on transparency. So doing that would help on that front.

Which, by the way, is one of the biggest problems people have with Sky.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
The general 'gist' of her latest tweets, which are protected, are that she didn't intend to make a reference to AC or did she intend to do so. She then says the Spanish media are turning it into something it's not and should be ashamed of themselves...

So who was the 'ex' doper.....:rolleyes:
 
ToreBear said:
Could it be you are unable to see what is talented and what is not at a young age?

Could it be that all of the best GT riders in the world where above average talented young riders at some stage?
Those possibilities do exist
But there is a fact here, that the only transformations comparable to Froome were accomplished by the likes of Riis and Santi Perez
Up to this day, no one has given a decent explanation for this transformation (no, he wasn't stunning before Bilharzia either) and no one has been able to refute the fact by given an example of someone else with a comparable transformation

So, I don't think this major reason for being suspicious is nitpicking of the "someone will always find something to be critical about" type ;)
 
ToreBear said:
Good post! He can never prove he is clean, someone will always find something they think is suspect and harp on about it.

It's better to leave that to the experts, and hope they aren't corrupt or incompetent.
So, besides your stupid euphemism regarding what froome has actually done, you think those who doubt are to blame for this episode?

Let's see, Dave brailsford, president team clean, wants to show that froome is clean. With data. Rather than be honest, on the contrary, he back doors the fans by hand selecting only the less suspicious data and rather than releasing it hiring someone , someone who lied for Armstrong, to analyze it and sign off on- it could be clean, grabbing media headlines. The qualifier - if he has a high vo2 max, usually left out so as not to confuse the easily confused target audience of nationalistic idiots.

So already having cheated his way to appearing transparent despite offering no transparency whatsoever, all brailsford has to do now is release the vo2 max. But he won't do that either, proving beyond doubt he has 0 interest in showing froome is clean. 3 chances to show some transparency, sky take the deceptive dishonest headline grabbing one over actual transparent one every single time, and it's the doubters who are to blame? Some standards you have:rolleyes:
 
Digger said:
The general 'gist' of her latest tweets, which are protected, are that she didn't intend to make a reference to AC or did she intend to do so. She then says the Spanish media are turning it into something it's not and should be ashamed of themselves...

So who was the 'ex' doper.....:rolleyes:
Does it matter, plenty of them out there, Garmin have a few, funny to see how all the Bertie Fans on twitter go ballistic about it, sensative types:D
 
Aug 9, 2012
1,719
0
0
Gung Ho Gun said:
Those possibilities do exist
But there is a fact here, that the only transformations comparable to Froome were accomplished by the likes of Riis and Santi Perez
Up to this day, no one has given a decent explanation for this transformation (no, he wasn't stunning before Bilharzia either) and no one has been able to refute the fact by given an example of someone else with a comparable transformation

So, I don't think this major reason for being suspicious is nitpicking of the "someone will always find something to be critical about" type ;)
Good, you are open to other explanations.:)

As for the fact, that looks like an opinion to me.

And as for transformations, I would think there are others with surprising(to some) transformations. Armstrong, Indurain, Chiapucci, Berzin etc. But so? Could it be that such transformations happen normally without dope? Could it be that what we see as transformation is actually a normal progression? Perhaps we just haven't seen or noticed the earlier progressions?


I think the problem in cycling with looking at similar cases is that we don't know what was clean and what was not. The only one I think was more or less clean was Lemond, and I think following the same development path as him as proof of cleanliness is silly. He is one individual, and individuals are different and develop differently.

Could it be that there are some results in Froomes past that might have been an indication of a future GT winner?

Could it be that even if we saw the indication, we wouldn't know it was an indication because we don't know how to spot future GT winners?
 
Aug 9, 2012
1,719
0
0
The Hitch said:
So, besides your stupid euphemism regarding what froome has actually done, you think those who doubt are to blame for this episode?

Let's see, Dave brailsford, president team clean, wants to show that froome is clean. With data. Rather than be honest, on the contrary, he back doors the fans by hand selecting only the less suspicious data and rather than releasing it hiring someone , someone who lied for Armstrong, to analyze it and sign off on- it could be clean, grabbing media headlines. The qualifier - if he has a high vo2 max, usually left out so as not to confuse the easily confused target audience of nationalistic idiots.

So already having cheated his way to appearing transparent despite offering no transparency whatsoever, all brailsford has to do now is release the vo2 max. But he won't do that either, proving beyond doubt he has 0 interest in showing froome is clean. 3 chances to show some transparency, sky take the deceptive dishonest headline grabbing one over actual transparent one every single time, and it's the doubters who are to blame? Some standards you have:rolleyes:
I don't see anyone as blameworthy. It's just how it is. Many people are more comfortable with conspiracies than accepting that there might be nothing wrong.

Why Brailsford is not releasing more, I don't know. I know that had I been in his shoes, I would not have released more. I would have given all info I have to independent experts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts