Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 442 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Will Carter

BANNED
May 14, 2014
167
0
0
The Hitch said:
While it would be significant if Mcquaid doubted Froome, what would be way more significant would be if **** Pound doubted Froome.

Oh wait, he does.
Can you provide a link for that - I'd like to read that interview / article.

Thanks.

WC
 
Will Carter said:
Ok so its them saying it. I thought Garmin were saying those kind of things as well - as in that that they trained in certain ways, NOT that they were the only people that trained that way. I may be mistaken - so just checking.
Sky and Brailsford claim Kerrison (who works exclusively for them, not for Garmin or anyone else) has invented training techniques that make doping seem like little more than a placebo effect. They use those training techniques exlusively and refuse to say what they are so that no one else will be able to use them.

In the last year they've claimed that other teams are slowly figuring out their super training techniques and beginning to use them too
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
The Hitch said:
Sky and Brailsford claim Kerrison (who works exclusively for them, not for Garmin or anyone else) has invented training techniques that make doping seem like little more than a placebo effect.
Did they use those exact words or are you paraphrasing?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
thehog said:
The British flag to Froome's left has been sprayed with anti-tailwind solution as its flying in the other direction. It may look like a side, headwind but its really a tailwind :rolleyes:
Race Radio said:
Did Sean Kelly ever ride 7 hours without eating? Lose 6kg in a 3 weeks? Of course not, he was too lazy
The Hitch said:
Who is the better expert on the blood passport, Chris Froome or Michael Ashenden?
Quoted for truth here, thanks fellas. Laughing my as off.
 
The Hitch said:
Sky and Brailsford claim Kerrison (who works exclusively for them, not for Garmin or anyone else) has invented training techniques that make doping seem like little more than a placebo effect. They use those training techniques exlusively and refuse to say what they are so that no one else will be able to use them.

In the last year they've claimed that other teams are slowly figuring out their super training techniques and beginning to use them too
They did invited Vayer for an hour's conversation. Vayer walked away shaking his head as they told him next to nothing.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Two hours actually, and he tried to get their valuable training techniques but naturally they weren't going to just give them away.

They went away content that they hadn't given in to lynch mob pressure.
 
Dec 9, 2011
482
0
0
thehog said:
Frankie hasn't been involved with cycling since 2001; perhaps not a person who could provide insights into cycling outside of USPS.

As for Walsh his writing speaks for itself.
Thats some serious twisting of the truth your doing there. Obviously Frankie has been and still is involved in cycling.

David Walsh remains one of the finest sports journalists of his generation
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
The Hitch said:
Sky and Brailsford claim Kerrison (who works exclusively for them, not for Garmin or anyone else) has invented training techniques that make doping seem like little more than a placebo effect. They use those training techniques exlusively and refuse to say what they are so that no one else will be able to use them.

In the last year they've claimed that other teams are slowly figuring out their super training techniques and beginning to use them too
After Sky purged many of their staff last year many of the "Secrets" were passed around......Nothing special.

A huge part of coaching is having the athlete think you have designed something special for him. The rider thinks they can only perform under the guidance of the coach. Ferrari and Checcini are experts at this.
 
Race Radio said:
After Sky purged many of their staff last year many of the "Secrets" were passed around......Nothing special.

A huge part of coaching is having the athlete think you have designed something special for him. The rider thinks they can only perform under the guidance of the coach. Ferrari and Checcini are experts at this.
You were saying several times Leinders was not even close to Ferrari so not sure this reconciles.

Think it was proven how bad Leinders was.

I think riders are bright enough to know what works. Rogers is a good example. He doesn't need Leinders and Kerrison.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Also, of course, while nutrition and sports science does improve, and can improve people's results and performance levels without doping, sure, we're not talking somebody who's made progression; we're talking somebody who one day was looking at losing his contract and taking a bottom level domestique salary at Lampre, and who the next day was close to being the best cyclist in the world. There are problems with this. Does this mean that he was straight up ignoring all the progress and nutrition and so on until that date, then suddenly it clicked and he became awesome? And also, don't we know that Froome hadn't been in a wind tunnel until 2013, which is one of the best known and most common sports science improvement methods, because of the gains better aerodynamics can make you, especially in the contre-le-montre?
You know, while of course I agree that Froome's sudden success is/was wildly improbable to put it mildly, I still don't understand how the doping angle is a sufficient explanation either unless Froome had access to some new dope nobody else used and/or (probably and) the 2011 Vuelta peloton was cleanish.


If your (general "you") answer to the question of how Froome was able to become a top cyclist so unexpectedly is simply: "well, he's using **** obviously!", then I'm not convinced, because there must be more to the story.
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
spalco said:
You know, while of course I agree that Froome's sudden success is/was wildly improbable to put it mildly, I still don't understand how the doping angle is a sufficient explanation either unless Froome had access to some new dope nobody else used and/or (probably and) the 2011 Vuelta peloton was cleanish.


If your (general "you") answer to the question of how Froome was able to become a top cyclist so unexpectedly is simply: "well, he's using **** obviously!", then I'm not convinced, because there must be more to the story.
Yep. I don't believe what I'm seeing either, but there are some startling inconsistencies with many of the arguments put forward that I've read here.

If it was a clean peloton/Dirty Sky scenario would the peloton have stayed clean after seeing the 2011 Vuelta, let alone the following TdF?

If Sky have something unknown at large, did that account for Rogers success at Sky, and if so why hasn't it spread now that he is out?
 
How did Basso improve so much between Fassa-dope and CSC-dope?
I honestly don't know
And we never will as long as riders don't come clear about "the past"
Saying "I doped but everybody else did too" or "I doped only once and noticed I became worse" doesn't help one bit to answer any questions
 
spalco said:
You know, while of course I agree that Froome's sudden success is/was wildly improbable to put it mildly, I still don't understand how the doping angle is a sufficient explanation either unless Froome had access to some new dope nobody else used and/or (probably and) the 2011 Vuelta peloton was cleanish.


If your (general "you") answer to the question of how Froome was able to become a top cyclist so unexpectedly is simply: "well, he's using **** obviously!", then I'm not convinced, because there must be more to the story.
I've said before, I do believe he had health problems in 2010-11 that contributed to how anonymous his performances were. And I do think recovering from that helped improve his level.

But I do not believe that Chris Froome ever showed anything remotely like the talent level that he is showing now, before the 2011 Vuelta. As I've said, I thought maybe if things went well he could be a Chris Anker Sørensen or an Egoi Martínez. And that at Barloworld he wasn't even the most impressive young African rider.

Also, a lot of the Team Sky sports science stuff has been shown to be nonsense for a couple of reasons. 1) Froome admitted not using some of it, not warming down post stages sometimes and not being in a wind tunnel, and 2) the argument was made that a reason he struggled was because he was technically and tactically poor, and improving this helped him become the destructive force he is today; however his position on the bike is no less awkward, his TT position is still dreadful, and Sky have been shown to be rather lacking in tactical aptitude on a few occasions in the last two years, they've just been strong enough that the simple bludgeoning tactic has been enough to overcome their weaknesses in other tactical aspects.

You also have the factor that Froome's blood values under bilharzia will have been completely unusable as a baseline because the characteristics of the disease make it impossible to tell what his natural level is; he was offered an opportunity, almost unique among the péloton, of a total do-over on his biopassport.

So no, doping is not some magic wand that has been waved and turned Cinderella into a princess. But the chance that it has not played some part in the transformation are, to my mind, extremely slim, because the amount of inconsistencies, bendings of the truth, changes to previous stories and straight up bald-faced lies that the team have had to tell to explain it away do not suggest any better reasons. And we are talking about a guy who had no problem with cutting corners, breaking into a national cycling official's email account to commit identity theft to get himself onto a World Championships startlist and getting thrown out of a race for hanging on to a motorbike. He was about to lose the dream, or so it seemed, and among the atmosphere that is the professional péloton do we really think he would have changed to become one of the most morally upstanding members of the péloton?
 
stutue said:
Yep. I don't believe what I'm seeing either, but there are some startling inconsistencies with many of the arguments put forward that I've read here.

If it was a clean peloton/Dirty Sky scenario would the peloton have stayed clean after seeing the 2011 Vuelta, let alone the following TdF?

If Sky have something unknown at large, did that account for Rogers success at Sky, and if so why hasn't it spread now that he is out?
Who says it hasn't spread out? Tinkoff Saxo are pretty much copying Sky's approach now.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
And we are talking about a guy who had no problem with cutting corners, breaking into a national cycling official's email account to commit identity theft to get himself onto a World Championships startlist and getting thrown out of a race for hanging on to a motorbike. He was about to lose the dream, or so it seemed, and among the atmosphere that is the professional péloton do we really think he would have changed to become one of the most morally upstanding members of the péloton?
"If you’re a cheat, you're a cheat, you're not half a cheat. You wouldn't say, 'I'll cheat here but I'm not going to cheat over there; I'll cheat on a Monday but not on a Tuesday.'

"If I'm a liar and a cheat and if my ethics and morals are all about cheating, if that's what we're doing here, lying to the world and cheating, then surely I'll be doing it in other places in my life. Not just parts."

- Dave Brailsford
......................
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Brailsford's statement also sheds some illuminating light on the decision to hire Geert Leinders, no? After all, if you cheat, you'll never clean up your act.
"The Leinders question is legitimate and when we do things there are legitimate questions that should be asked. We want them to be asked and we're more than happy to answer them. But I don’t like innuendo. That's unfair."

-DB
You're such a bully, Libertine. :D
 
Well, I'm just saying, if he thinks it's legitimate to ask the question why they hired a known doping doctor when he, as the person who ultimately is in charge, is of the opinion that no cheat can ever reform, has he really answered that question to date? Have all of the people who were responsible for such a blunder been brought to account? Do they still work for Sky in any capacity?

Why, when the team touts attention to detail as one of the reasons for its successes and progress, was his past overlooked when hiring (unless it wasn't, and Brailsford is being disingenuous... again?), as surely a lack of attention to detail means that a definite cheat (again, Brailsford's belief in the impossibility of reform) has been brought into the mix into a position where he influences all of the riders, and as a result all of the riders could be affected by him, wittingly or not (we know from Jesús Hernández about the 'heated massage pads' filled with synthetic testosterone at Liberty Seguros that riders weren't fully informed about). If it is impossible for somebody to reform, has Brailsford not totally exposed his entire workforce to the risk of false positives, due to negligence and non-disclosure?

To couch it in Brailsford terms, that is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY