• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 538 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
What he is doing is stimulating the growth of red blood cells by foreign substances ingested/injected into his body.

And when you do that you need fuzzy the passport. So the best thing you can do for that is going up and down from altitude and having some form of parasitical illness would help in rendering the passport profile next to useless. No software/expert could determine doping with his history.

But as with Armstrong doping is one part. The other part is having compliance from the testing arm/sporting body.

See Froome's performance at Romandie this year. Having that TUE made a significant difference. Additionally, nowing the keys to the passport program would asset greatly.

Are you saying the bilharzia infection was true and coincidentally at the right time, or that he used it as a cover story? If it was used as a cover he would need to 'persuade' a doc to fabricate the medical history / records / prescriptions. Not impossible but the guy in question is now quite high profile so it would be a risk for him to do it, etc.
 
Merckx index said:
I agree about the head scratching. But it’s possible Froome was clean as a whistle prior to the 2011 Vuelta. His improvement in that race is consistent with a typical blood doping program, EPO and/or transfusion. We know from several studies that this kind of improvement is easily obtainable from a rather moderate blood doping program. But if he was clean before that, riding in a still-doping peloton, his results should be considered quite good. If we accept this scenario, Froome was always a very talented rider who was being held back by other dopers. He might have been a super-responder, but he might have just responded more or less normally.

I think Horner probably had less to lose by doping last year than any other rider in recent history, but Froome in 2011 was in a somewhat similar situation.

This is where my head hurts from all the scratching. Either he doped (only) during the race or started before the race.

Now the second option is odd since he wasn't slated to race the Vuelta, which is why I asked how soon before the race did the other rider drop out. Would it have given enough time to extract blood / EPO dose?

And what if he only doped during the race - surely that would kick off BP / testing issues given the massive performance increase and would be incredibly risky. I know USPS microdosed, etc. but that was to keep them topped up which doesnt sound like the case here. And lets ignore any kind of UCI protection since I havent seen anything to suggest that in 2011. Also if DB was on the verge of dumping CF then I can see he would quite easily have thrown him under the bus had there been any potential anomolies in the race. After all it would fit the SKY mantra of clean racing perfectly - "guy had poor results in the past, improved massively, we were suspicious - bye bye job"

None of this makes sense in the same way as a lot of the other explanations.
 
kingjr said:
No one said anything about a 100 % guarantee.

And yes it is out of the ordinary. The fact that there are other (some not very fitting) examples doesn't change that. You could argue though that it's ordinary that things out of the ordinary happen. Sorry for the clumsy english.

If 70% of cyclists get better after 23 and 30% do not wtf is so weird about Froome being in the second catergory?

You believe he is in the 0.000000001% greatest athletes of all time and to believe he is clean you have to believe in the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability that he is the only person in the history of tropical medicine to have Bilharzia so bad he required 4 times the normal treatment, and a bunch of other ridiculous probabilities to explain things him and Sky have said that make no sense.


But its the 30% chance that he regressed as a young athlete that you find so difficult to understand:eek:
 
TheSpud said:
Are you saying the bilharzia infection was true and coincidentally at the right time, or that he used it as a cover story? If it was used as a cover he would need to 'persuade' a doc to fabricate the medical history / records / prescriptions. Not impossible but the guy in question is now quite high profile so it would be a risk for him to do it, etc.

What risk is there? The passport is all but private and the data points are canceled out relatively easily.

Badzhilla is a story. A story which allows the passport to become very fuzzy. Is is true? Probably but not in the way that he describes it.

Riding January to September in a regular fashion is more in line in keeping the values at a consistent level in between and with going to altitude to render the up down values readings. You just won't get a passport profile that will trigger anything training/racing in that fashion.

The mistake with JTL I believe, was Brailsford was unaware that the September blood draw would be included. He missed that and it cost him. He would't make the same mistake twice. Froome is effectively the same as JTL. He would have to create the reasons why the change in values from 2009-2011. Which has done via the illness and thus created a new baseline. Subsequent years is using altitude and the illness again.

Froome's comments about testing at Tenerife is indicative of the liar that he is. He well and truly knows there is little point for the UCI to test at altitude. Its pointless in fact.
 
Merckx index said:
. But it’s possible Froome was clean as a whistle prior to the 2011 Vuelta. His improvement in that race is consistent with a typical blood doping program, EPO and/or transfusion. We know from several studies that this kind of improvement is easily obtainable from a rather moderate blood doping program.

Dont you understand something so easy to understand that to recover from a disease as Bilharzia has the same effect that to take EPo or a transfusion?

You must join something those year was taking part year bu year, the biopassport, if you think Froome has been always clean, that kind of riders improved his results those years from 2009 to 2011.

And you must joing the effect to be in a team as SKY, a revolutionary team, not now, as everybody has copy them, but a team with a new way and more budget than anothers, and Froome already that year was 15 in Castilla y León and Romandia.
Froome always have said that to race beside Wiggins a big tour showed him how to ride better and how to keep energy. He learned a lot, he was with 25 years old still as a junior, as he started cycling with 20, when normally is with 15.
He was destinated to improve as the bilhalzia was getting weaker, but in the Vuelta you must put more factor into accopunt to get that strong rise of level.
He showed in 2008 that if he was clean, he was a rider to follow condiering when he started cycling an how, and the good ITT he did in le Tour, and in Portugal, and in Asturias, and the well he climbed with the best riders of the world in the Quenn stage of the Tour, or in Mont Faron, etc... Bilharzia doesnt mean you are not going to be strong never, just mean no consistency, not always strong. He nedeed a lot to learn about cycling, and that take a time, not just two years.
 
thehog said:
What risk is there? The passport is all but private and the data points are canceled out relatively easily.

Badzhilla is a story. A story which allows the passport to become very fuzzy. Is is true? Probably but not in the way that he describes it.

Riding January to September in a regular fashion is more in line in keeping the values at a consistent level in between and with going to altitude to render the up down values readings. You just won't get a passport profile that will trigger anything training/racing in that fashion.

The mistake with JTL I believe, was Brailsford was unaware that the September blood draw would be included. He missed that and it cost him. He would't make the same mistake twice. Froome is effectively the same as JTL. He would have to create the reasons why the change in values from 2009-2011. Which has done via the illness and thus created a new baseline. Subsequent years is using altitude and the illness again.

Froome's comments about testing at Tenerife is indicative of the liar that he is. He well and truly knows there is little point for the UCI to test at altitude. Its pointless in fact.

There was a time cycling worked out that way.
Of course, you can think now is the same.
Your are wrong and one day I think people will get convinced about that.
It is a pity that you cant enjoy cycling as I can do, sorry for you becouse things have changed a lot.
I cant watch now cycling of 90s... as I coudn watch now if I were so sure as you that doping is so important. I dont follow Vuelta a Colombia, ie,...becouse I know what is happend in that races.

There is not a mistake with JTL, he was a doper and the system now works, nopt `perfectly, but works, he doped before SKy, out of Biopassport, and he could cheat SKY.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Visit site
Taxus4a said:
Dont you understand something so easy to understand that to recover from a disease as Bilharzia has the same effect that to take EPo or a transfusion?

You must join something those year was taking part year bu year, the biopassport, if you think Froome has been always clean, that kind of riders improved his results those years from 2009 to 2011.

And you must joing the effect to be in a team as SKY, a revolutionary team, not now, as everybody has copy them, but a team with a new way and more budget than anothers, and Froome already that year was 15 in Castilla y León and Romandia.
Froome always have said that to race beside Wiggins a big tour showed him how to ride better and how to keep energy. He learned a lot, he was with 25 years old still as a junior, as he started cycling with 20, when normally is with 15.
He was destinated to improve as the bilhalzia was getting weaker, but in the Vuelta you must put more factor into accopunt to get that strong rise of level.
He showed in 2008 that if he was clean, he was a rider to follow condiering when he started cycling an how, and the good ITT he did in le Tour, and in Portugal, and in Asturias, and the well he climbed with the best riders of the world in the Quenn stage of the Tour, or in Mont Faron, etc... Bilharzia doesnt mean you are not going to be strong never, just mean no consistency, not always strong. He nedeed a lot to learn about cycling, and that take a time, not just two years.

Finishing 16th and 3 minutes down on the stage winner, when you've been taking it easy for the last few stages, isn't what I would call a good ride.
I mean Cunego is not a rider who's regarded as a good TT-er and in the final ITT of the 2006 Tour he finished 10th @3.44. When it comes to the final ITT of a GT, 90% of the riders just want to finish inside the time cut, the GC guys have to ride at full gas and TT specialists will try and win the stage.

So to pick one TT and say Froome had potential because he finished top 20 is silly. If I posted a TT result where he finished 138th would that be proof that he sucked at TT's?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Taxus4a said:
And you must joing the effect to be in a team as SKY, a revolutionary team, not now, as everybody has copy them,

Please.

Help me here.

Can you name 3 things Sky did that were revolutionary - just 3 - that the other teams now copy?

Is that possible?

Surely you know, or you would not write this.

OldCrank says you are connected and know what you are talking about, so it would back up his appraisal of you.

Otherwise...
 
The Hitch said:
If 70% of cyclists get better after 23 and 30% do not wtf is so weird about Froome being in the second catergory?

You believe he is in the 0.000000001% greatest athletes of all time and to believe he is clean you have to believe in the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability that he is the only person in the history of tropical medicine to have Bilharzia so bad he required 4 times the normal treatment, and a bunch of other ridiculous probabilities to explain things him and Sky have said that make no sense.


But its the 30% chance that he regressed as a young athlete that you find so difficult to understand:eek:
I enjoy very much how you keep making up numbers.

Even those who somewhat stagnate during that period are likely to improve later, with 26, 27. It's a different scenario when you are very early at a point at which it simply doesn't get much better (Schleck, Sagan).

I've had my own experiences with varying opinions of different doctors. I have a benign brain tumor that can cause epileptic fits from time to time, so far only in my sleep and I have it fairly well under control with medication, so no operation will be needed right now. When I was in the hospital after my first epileptic fit, and we looked at the MRI pictures and discovered the tumor the doctor said it had nothing to do with causing the epilepsy. Couple months later in a different hospital, they told me the exact opposite.
As far as the patients expertise on the subject goes, I couldn't even tell you right now whether the tumor is on the left or on the right side of the brain, despite having looked at the pictures quite a few times in the last 4 years.
So I can somewhat empathise with Froome when he gets things wrong regarding his illness.


Anyway, since you were talking percentages, what are the odds that Froome out of a sudden found the potion no one else knows about that turns him into one of the world's best GC-rider overnight ( ;) ), that he's a one of a kind super-responder, the UCI is covering his tracks and so on.
 
The Hitch said:
1) no it is not.

2) it's irrelevant anyway since froome did not recover from bilharzia till 2013.

And you have no comeback to that.

Dont recover totally, but of course he put tha illness in a second plane or even out.

If bilharzia is inside but without effect, and that is something that happened as well in 2009 or 2010 before he started his treatment, you can ride at your best level. He had problems in 2011-2013 to train properly when the illness had effect, but almost nothing.

To understand that is an illness decrease your hematocric, to recover from that illness is the same that increase your hemtocric, and that is the same to take EPO or to have a transfusion, it is quite easy. I think if youi think twice you can understand something so simple, and if you dont, I am not going to discuss more with someone that cant understand something so simple.

Cheers
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Taxus4a said:
To understand that is an illness decrease your hematocric, to recover from that illness is the same that increase your hemtocric, and that is the same to take EPO or to have a transfusion, it is quite easy. I think if youi think twice you can understand something so simple, and if you dont, I am not going to discuss more with someone that cant understand something so simple.

Except the team doctor told David Walsh there was no difference in Froome's passport.

Clearly, one of you is clueless about Froome's biological passport.
And only one of you has seen it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Taxus4a said:
To understand that is an illness decrease your hematocric, to recover from that illness is the same that increase your hemtocric, and that is the same to take EPO or to have a transfusion.


So you are saying that Froome sick is fantastic rider, able to ride in the pro peloton, but at the back because he is sick with Biilharzia and then when cured he zooms to front and wins all round him (like with EPO) because he is no longer sick?

Well why was he not near or at the front of races prior to contacting Bilharzia?

Sorry not buying.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Please.

Help me here.

Can you name 3 things Sky did that were revolutionary - just 3 - that the other teams now copy?

Is that possible?

Surely you know, or you would not write this.

OldCrank says you are connected and know what you are talking about, so it would back up his appraisal of you.

Otherwise...
Just three?
Long training in altitude (first year Contador go to Teide, it is not the same that Navacerrada)
training based in watts
Spining after a stage (Garmin did as well)
.
.
.
New material in bikes and in dress. In track every small factor counts, thay translated that into the road when the rest of the teams maybe thought doping era wouldn finish ever and they werent so ready for the new era. if fact, if you see Padova, although we never know all the names, there is not any SKy there, and it is after Padova, when SKy star to get better (as well they got very good riders for the team, they have money for that)
Of course cycling is not fare, money is reallly important in a capitalism world, but not only in cycling. In the past money was better doping, better power to deal with UCI, now money is better means. better riders, better specislist, better bus, better materail, better altitude traiuning, etc,...and that of course, counts, it is not possible a rider in Fundacion Euskadi or even in Caja Rural get the same result than in Astana, Movistar, SKY or Kathousa.

This is to copy SKy methods:




Anyway sky has never been the best team of the year, even whern he had riders of the quality of froome, Wiggins, Rogers, Porte, Urán, Henao,...Movistar was better.

You can find a lot of now and statements about that fact:8translate)

http://ciclismo.as.com/ciclismo/2014/04/15/mas_ciclismo/1397521921_494621.html

http://revistadiners.com.co/articul...-metodo-del-sky-al-servicio-de-rigoberto-uran

This is before SKy started in the peloton:
http://www.marca.com/2010/01/25/ciclismo/1264424451.html


This is to copy sky methods, before SKy nobody took ice bath to recover, why' if you had EPO free...now I have seen Nibali, Purito, etc,.. doing that (I cant find pictures now)

images


At the begining, everybody laught about "SKy things", new own pillows to go to all the hotels, and things like that. Now, nobody laught, and most of the things are used.
 
Benotti69 said:
So you are saying that Froome sick is fantastic rider, able to ride in the pro peloton, but at the back because he is sick with Biilharzia and then when cured he zooms to front and wins all round him (like with EPO) because he is no longer sick?

Well why was he not near or at the front of races prior to contacting Bilharzia?

Sorry not buying.

Well, I wrote the article , second in my signature to dont be all the days answering things like that in forums.
it is obvious you didnt read, you will find there the answer, if you are not agree with something, tell me.
Take your days, it is necessary.
it is a long explanation, but even you can go to the final, to the summery.
To sum up, he started late in cycling, and he had things to learn, but he showed a good potential, as a lot of people said that before 2009, sometimes with result, sometimes without results.
I said in 2008 that Froome amazes me in the Tour. that is writed. I wouldn be surprised if he years later win the Tour, I was disapointed in 2009, I hoped he was top ten in Giro even helping Soler, and he was just 34.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Except the team doctor told David Walsh there was no difference in Froome's passport.

Clearly, one of you is clueless about Froome's biological passport.
And only one of you has seen it.

Of course, that is one of the things about Froome that SKy or UCI must explain better. I would like to read that explanation, maybe is a misunderstand.. no differente between what exactly?? years, months, what??

Walsh can say what he want, but Froome always have said his illness decrease his natural hematocric, so it is obvious if you recover from that is like to take EPO or a transfusion.

Anyway, for people that said in this tread, he had to take EPO or tranfusion, if the biopasport had no difference, that is not possible as well, and whatever explain the increase the performance of Froome, doping ior not it was not blood values, and there is not any doing better for cycling that blood doping, nor testosterone, nor Hormone, steroids, cortisone, GW1415, etc...

Sky had a big secret and they allow Gerrans to leave the team and to win with another team San Remo and Lieje and allows Froome, who always would be more conspiranoic to win the Vuelta :confused:
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
It's revolutionary though - as in, never seen before.

involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.

And yet there is nothing new in the post describing the revolutionary Team Sky.

My mind is officially boggled.