Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 401 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ToreBear said:
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?
Chiapucci, Berzin indeed ...
Go ahead, find a somewhat comparable case of transformation of a rider who wasn't blatantly doped to the verge of death
Until then, I consider it a fact that no one else has done that
 
Gung Ho Gun said:
Chiapucci, Berzin indeed ...
Go ahead, find a somewhat comparable case of transformation of a rider who wasn't blatantly doped to the verge of death
Until then, I consider it a fact that no one else has done that
Thats kind of my point. Since all we are used to in cyclings history are doped GT winners, we have no idea what clean looks like in cycling.

We can't find whats normal because we have no idea what it looks like.

Can you come up with any GT winners from before 2005 that you think were clean?
 
ToreBear said:
Thats kind of my point. Since all we are used to in cyclings history are doped GT winners, we have no idea what clean looks like in cycling.

We can't find whats normal because we have no idea what it looks like.

Can you come up with any GT winners from before 2005 that you think were clean?
I think that you have to say GT-winners before2005 and after app. 1991/92. After the early nineties blood vector doping was the name of the game and probably all GT-winners since then dabbled more or less in blood vector doping of sorts.

Before 2005 clean GT-winner I would stake my house on: Lemond. And I think Fignon and Hinault were definitely not doing any crazy blood vector doping sh!t while winning their GT's.

The point is up to and including the 80's it was pretty clear straightaway which talent would be a future GT-contender barring any great mishaps such as injuries or accidents. The likes of Lemond, Hinault, Fignon, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Merckx, Ocana, Poulidor and even Thevenet showed great promise from the outset and at a pretty early age. It was with the onset of more intricate doping possibilities that the form book got turned upside down and we got these late "developers" like Riis, Chiapucci, Armstrong, Wiggins and, dare I say it, Froome. Denying those facts is so detached from reality that it really shouldn't warrant any further discussion from anyone with a half a working brain.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Much hate here...
Questioning a guy who came from nowhere hate? That is pure trollling.

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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...
What if?

Of course if his data released showed he was as talented as LeMond then i guess most would leave it at that. But he hasn't and he wont.

This idea that questioning an athlete's ability who came from nowhere in a matter of weeks to the top in a sport where the culture is to dope, well i dont see any hate, i see disbelief.

The Froome's blaming Armstrong is weak and pathetic. There was a hell of a lot more doping going on than Armstrong and all enabled by teams and federations, but they choose to blame Armstrong. How convenient to try and leave the spotlight for doping resting on Armstrong.
 
ToreBear said:
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.
He hasn't done that either:rolleyes:

I could understand if brailsford had done nothing, you could say - he's done nothing wrong. But what he actually did was selectively pick and choose data that would make froome less suspicious, leave out the bits that would make froome look more suspicious, and submit that biased essentially irrelevant data to one guy and claim transparency.:rolleyes:

That is straight up deception.
 
The Hitch said:
He hasn't done that either:rolleyes:

I could understand if brailsford had done nothing, you could say - he's done nothing wrong. But what he actually did was selectively pick and choose data that would make froome less suspicious, leave out the bits that would make froome look more suspicious, and submit that biased essentially irrelevant data to one guy and claim transparency.:rolleyes:

That is straight up deception.
Out of interest, given that he didn't publicly release any of the the data, how do you know that the data he chose looked less suspicious than the earlier data?
 
Again, and this is to our latest contributors. A journalist asked Brailsford last July, have you got VO2 max results to correlate what Grappe is saying, otherwise it's just an estimate. Brailsford said, after getting defensive, that froome has never done a vo2 max test...Vayer also asked for one to be done. Brailsford then said we will do one the next time he's in a lab.

As of two weeks ago Fran Millar said on twitter that they won't do one, just to placate those on twitter. Which is disingenuous as we are not the only ones asking. Previously to this she said 'we may' do a test at the training camp in Mallorca in December.

Basically they won't do it.

Secondly the journo asked for pre Vuelta 2011 files...Brailsford replied 'if we have them'.
So what? you can have them if we haven't misplaced them or if the dog hasn't ate them.
 
ToreBear said:
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?
Do you have examples of transformations that are not known doping matters? The names you've noted have other notations :D:D
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Its too bad Riis confessed, otherwise sky fans could say "look at Riis and his cleans transformation, if he could do it why not Froome?"
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
It is becoming a circular argument, we need new skybots in here. With Little Ritchard out of the Giro it looks like the Brailsford Four have gotten a little bit anxious about Contidope's form in pre-season: back to the drawing board:


Pssst, what will happen in cycling when Gerard Thomskin [UK Cycling Expert style] will learn how to stay on a bike? Bet Sky need a little help from good old Bobby Boring again?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Digger said:
...
As of two weeks ago Fran Millar said on twitter that they won't do one, just to placate those on twitter. Which is disingenuous as we are not the only ones asking. Previously to this she said 'we may' do a test at the training camp in Mallorca in December.
some of fran's reactions have been straight from the Arsmtrong Book of Fraud.
attacking the messenger, portraying froome as victim, etc.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
del1962 said:
Wish I could have a pound for everytime someone in the clinic plays the just like Armstrong card:eek:
on the one hand, it;s baffling to see history repeat itself.

on the other hand, it's quite predictable to see certain PR patterns repeat themselves.
there's only a limited number of ways how cheats react when confronted with contradictions and lies etc.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Much hate here...
I agree. As you have proved with your posts on Horner, it's possible to love a guy and still shred his claims to be clean.

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...
Explain how the data would look for there to be nothing suspect. If he had power/weight values comparable to what Grappe claims they are for post-2011, how would you explain his much poorer performances? Are you aware that we have already compared his ITT times pre- and post 2011 Vuelta, and found an indication of a 15% increase in power? How does someone with Froome’s current power ride ITTs so poorly? Do you think better bike handling, not wobbling around so much, can produce a 15% increase in power? Without so much as a visit to a wind tunnel? Seriously?

OTOH, if his power values were consistent with his poorer performance, how would he explain the large increase over a period of a few months in 2011? Michele, who never answered some pertinent questions put to her when she was on the forum recently, implied that it might have resulted from weight loss, but there are no data supporting that claim, either. It’s pure speculation. And even if there were data, they wouldn’t explain a 15% increase in power/surface area. He would have to lose more than 30% of his body weight to accomplish that.

She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Grappe thinks it’s over 85, and that it might be over 90. How in the world can someone with a V02max that high show so little promise for so long? How many Tom Danielsons are there, who never proved to be quite elite as GT contenders, but who set all kinds of hill climbing records in situations where tactics, bike handling skills and the ability to conserve energy over a three week race did not come into play? And yet a guy with a V02max that might be off the charts is never noticed?

You know the most disappointing part of this entire coverup? Not that they won’t measure and publish his V02max; not that they won’t publish his power values pre-2011; not that they won’t publish his weight during these time periods. It’s that they won’t even admit that there is a problem to address. If Froome is really clean, they should be publishing all the data they can, shouting from the rooftops that a huge increase in performance is possible without doping.

Walsh wants to write a book? How about a detailed description of how such a transformation was made? That would be one of the most inspirational sports science stories of all time, if it could be documented in terms of a detailed analysis of all the relevant parameters. There has to be an explanation for Froome's big jump in performance, and any real trainer or doctor associated with the team would want to know more than anything else in the world how it happened. Maybe it really happened clean, but how will we ever know if they make no effort whatsoever to find out, apparently not even privately, among themselves. That says volumes about what they believe is the answer.
 
RownhamHill said:
Out of interest, given that he didn't publicly release any of the the data, how do you know that the data he chose looked less suspicious than the earlier data?
Well grape said his power outputs remained the same from Sep 2011 to July 2013, ergo he didn't start doing anything extra jn that time. The relevant comparison is pre 11 vuelta to any time post it. That one will raise questions either way for sky - either, why did his power output increase so much, or, why wasn't he performing with such a high power output. But funnily, brailsford doesnt give that data. No, conveniently, that bit gets left out. Some coincidence eh.
 
Merckx index said:
I agree. As you have proved with your posts on Horner, it's possible to love a guy and still shred his claims to be clean.



Explain how the data would look for there to be nothing suspect. If he had power/weight values comparable to what Grappe claims they are for post-2011, how would you explain his much poorer performances? Are you aware that we have already compared his ITT times pre- and post 2011 Vuelta, and found an indication of a 15% increase in power? How does someone with Froome’s current power ride ITTs so poorly? Do you think better bike handling, not wobbling around so much, can produce a 15% increase in power? Without so much as a visit to a wind tunnel? Seriously?

OTOH, if his power values were consistent with his poorer performance, how would he explain the large increase over a period of a few months in 2011? Michele, who never answered some pertinent questions put to her when she was on the forum recently, implied that it might have resulted from weight loss, but there are no data supporting that claim, either. It’s pure speculation. And even if there were data, they wouldn’t explain a 15% increase in power/surface area. He would have to lose more than 30% of his body weight to accomplish that.

She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Grappe thinks it’s over 85, and that it might be over 90. How in the world can someone with a V02max that high show so little promise for so long? How many Tom Danielsons are there, who never proved to be quite elite as GT contenders, but who set all kinds of hill climbing records in situations where tactics, bike handling skills and the ability to conserve energy over a three week race did not come into play? And yet a guy with a V02max that might be off the charts is never noticed?

You know the most disappointing part of this entire coverup? Not that they won’t measure and publish his V02max; not that they won’t publish his power values pre-2011; not that they won’t publish his weight during these time periods. It’s that they won’t even admit that there is a problem to address. If Froome is really clean, they should be publishing all the data they can, shouting from the rooftops that a huge increase in performance is possible without doping.

Walsh wants to write a book? How about a detailed description of how such a transformation was made? That would be one of the most inspirational sports science stories of all time, if it could be documented in terms of a detailed analysis of all the relevant parameters. There has to be an explanation for Froome's big jump in performance, and any real trainer or doctor associated with the team would want to know more than anything else in the world how it happened. Maybe it really happened clean, but how will we ever know if they make no effort whatsoever to find out, apparently not even privately, among themselves. That says volumes about what they believe is the answer.
When they make a film about froome doping this needs to be the speech the lead character makes to convince character b it's worth going after froome.

No one remotely neutral is going to after hearing or reading that going to remain agnostic on the issue.
 
The Hitch said:
Well grape said his power outputs remained the same from Sep 2011 to July 2013, ergo he didn't start doing anything extra jn that time. The relevant comparison is pre 11 vuelta to any time post it. That one will raise questions either way for sky - either, why did his power output increase so much, or, why wasn't he performing with such a high power output. But funnily, brailsford doesnt give that data. No, conveniently, that bit gets left out. Some coincidence eh.
Yeah, I understand the argument, it was kind of a rhetorical question.

The thing is, the one thing we know about Froome is that his performances did transform over a very short period of time. We don't need data to see that. And that in and of itself is suspicious.

The stated explanation is that he was sick, suffering from fatigue, and couldn't put down peak performance over any series of races/days. Ergo he didn't have a leadership role, and ergo he performed in races as a domestique with all that entails for a power profile. So presumably you'd expect to see power-files that followed that pattern, no? (Indeed a power profile that showed no step change in mid August would be more suspicious wouldn't it, as it would imply either that Froome was performing as a GC star in power terms but was inexplicably failing in races, or the data was manipulated, neither of which is a particularly 'good' story to tell for a number of obvious reasons)

So back to the point. If we'd expect (from observed performance) a power history that pre-Summer 2011 was spotty at best, and that data was published, then how would it illuminate the question of how the transformation (which result wise is empirically observed fact) was achieved? Would it help differentiate between the effects of treating a genuine illness, or the effects of a genuine drugs programme? If so, how? (These are genuine questions btw, not rhetorical ones)

As I say the fact is the transformation in Froome's performance is suspicious. Regardless of whether he is clean or dirty (or even, more to the point, whether Sky themselves know whether he is clean or dirty) I can't see quite how Sky drawing even more public attention to the suspicion benefits them at all.
 
Merckx index said:
I agree. As you have proved with your posts on Horner, it's possible to love a guy and still shred his claims to be clean.



Explain how the data would look for there to be nothing suspect. If he had power/weight values comparable to what Grappe claims they are for post-2011, how would you explain his much poorer performances? Are you aware that we have already compared his ITT times pre- and post 2011 Vuelta, and found an indication of a 15% increase in power? How does someone with Froome’s current power ride ITTs so poorly? Do you think better bike handling, not wobbling around so much, can produce a 15% increase in power? Without so much as a visit to a wind tunnel? Seriously?

OTOH, if his power values were consistent with his poorer performance, how would he explain the large increase over a period of a few months in 2011? Michele, who never answered some pertinent questions put to her when she was on the forum recently, implied that it might have resulted from weight loss, but there are no data supporting that claim, either. It’s pure speculation. And even if there were data, they wouldn’t explain a 15% increase in power/surface area. He would have to lose more than 30% of his body weight to accomplish that.

She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Grappe thinks it’s over 85, and that it might be over 90. How in the world can someone with a V02max that high show so little promise for so long? How many Tom Danielsons are there, who never proved to be quite elite as GT contenders, but who set all kinds of hill climbing records in situations where tactics, bike handling skills and the ability to conserve energy over a three week race did not come into play? And yet a guy with a V02max that might be off the charts is never noticed?

You know the most disappointing part of this entire coverup? Not that they won’t measure and publish his V02max; not that they won’t publish his power values pre-2011; not that they won’t publish his weight during these time periods. It’s that they won’t even admit that there is a problem to address. If Froome is really clean, they should be publishing all the data they can, shouting from the rooftops that a huge increase in performance is possible without doping.

Walsh wants to write a book? How about a detailed description of how such a transformation was made? That would be one of the most inspirational sports science stories of all time, if it could be documented in terms of a detailed analysis of all the relevant parameters. There has to be an explanation for Froome's big jump in performance, and any real trainer or doctor associated with the team would want to know more than anything else in the world how it happened. Maybe it really happened clean, but how will we ever know if they make no effort whatsoever to find out, apparently not even privately, among themselves. That says volumes about what they believe is the answer.

So how did you work all this out ? On one hand you criticise Grappe:

"She also didn’t seem aware that Grappe never measured Froome’s V02max; he estimated it, based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. "

I bet you don't make loads of dodgy assumptions though ? Yeah right. :p
 
bigcog said:
I bet you don't make loads of dodgy assumptions though ? Yeah right. :p
It's clear you have faith. It's unfounded, but, it's faith. The MI post is as good as the reasoning gets for questioning Froome's transformation. And it's not like we haven't seen these transformations before, entirely supported by the cycling federation.

But, you have faith. And because it's faith, there is no discussion.

Ignored...
 
ToreBear said:
Thats kind of my point. Since all we are used to in cyclings history are doped GT winners, we have no idea what clean looks like in cycling.

We can't find whats normal because we have no idea what it looks like.

Can you come up with any GT winners from before 2005 that you think were clean?
I can't come up with any from after 2005.
 
DirtyWorks said:
It's clear you have faith. It's unfounded, but, it's faith. The MI post is as good as the reasoning gets for questioning Froome's transformation. And it's not like we haven't seen these transformations before, entirely supported by the cycling federation.

But, you have faith. And because it's faith, there is no discussion.

Ignored...

Yep, to believe in froome, it's important to have faith.

Or rather, FAITH - **** All In The Head.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
The Hitch said:
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?
It seems my post is misunderstood by some. I blame my grammar for it...
Anyway. I wasn´t talking about if he is clean or not, I was asking if anything would change if he releases his complete data, and there would be nothing suspicious to see...
The answer is no. Nobody would change his view of Froome. Thus it makes no sense for him to release his files.
So why are people still asking for it??? It makes no sense...
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I did:



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.
See my answer to Hitch... It makes no sense for him to release...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS