• 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 539 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Taxus4a said:
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.

You are mentally challenged if you believe what you have just typed in this post and many other about Froome in this topic and I mean that with all due respect.

He never started cycling late for starters and he never showed major potential.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
So what's the greatest improvement made by a clean rider in a short space of time?

Or, if Froome's improvement is the greatest improvement ever and is proven to be due to doping, who has had the second greatest improvement ever and are they obviously doping as no one has ever made that big an improvement without doping?

Improvement (or performance) does not prove doping - proof of doping does however explain improvement (or performance)
 
kingjr said:
So I can somewhat empathise with Froome when he gets things wrong regarding his illness.

Your alleged experience means nothing to this discussion. Froome has clearly outright lied about his disease and we know he lied because he changed his story when he realized it didn't make sense. And when kimmage picked up on it he changed his story again.

In any case it's clear from your post you aren't actually familiar with froomes bilharzia lies. His bilharzia story is not independent from his transformation story. It's part of it and since what he said about bilharzia wasn't true it messes with his transformation story.

For jnstance froome says bilharzia can only be treated in Africa since no one In Europe has any clue about what it is, and as a result he details biannual trios he meant to different places in Africa to get treatment. This is total horse****. There is probably more knowledge in Europe, and jn any case the simple pzq treatment can be easily administered in 50 million places in any city.

So what is your alleged experience supposed to prove. That froome misunderstood how bilharzia treatment works to the point where he underwent several hallucinations in which he imagined travelling to Africa and getting treatments.

Btw it's always admirable how the more hardened fans are willing to offer up themselves and stories of stupidity in order to defend the rider on a point. Admirable since the case against froome is so strong it's like one of those heroic last stands in the movies where the hero or hero's accept they are going to lose and take on an infinitely superior enemy for honour.
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.
I don't know and I don't need to know because froome doping is not reliant on him discovering a new drug himself. If his doping programme consists of a few small time drugs and the rest is talent he is still doping. The idea that froome is either 100% clean or 100% the most doped athlete and that there is no middle ground is a false dichotomy created by people clearly devoid of logic. If froome took 1 vial of epo his whole career he doped. Your position is the one with small probabilities since you claim to know exactly what number of drugs he took and you have to account for every lie he ever made and any discrepancy in his story. I don't.

To paraphrase an old political quote, you have to be right 100% of the time. I have to be right only once. And if you Cant understand that, no wonder your one of the people who believe in froome.
 
Taxus4a said:
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
That is not how it works.
 
The Hitch said:
That is not how it works.
Why not? show me a medical article about.
bilharzia has different typologuies, some people die, some people dont realized they have an illness.
What I am agree, it is that there are different and contradictories versions about Bilharzia, and it is not a very clear part.
Sometimes that came from mistakes of journalist, but sometimes there is not a big sense.
That doent mean for me is everything a lie, but yes, it is something to clearify
 
Digger said:
They used the bilharzia line in the kimmage interview as to why he was struggling so much - kimmage then said why wasn't his blood affected...cound intervened and said it wasn't that bad!
Could you explain this better, where I can find the interview?

if Cound ment his values werent big affected by Bilharzia, yes, I agree, it is like that, but it must be a difference, of course, not with an analysis, but if he had several analysis along his illness, of course the average must be less that now, even if now he is training more.

Nobody must expect that if Froome had 45 naturally with bilharzia that is 40, it is not like that. The difference could be 2 points, no more, and it depends training, illness for crash and that is a factor that change two points easy just of the day is hot or not, maybe there is not a significant difference in a graphic.
 
Colonel said:
And a higher cadence and big heart as described by Chris Carmichael and Ferrari in their articles was the reason for Lance's rise to fame.
And?

Always wil have a reason, excuse if there is doping, and real if there is not.

But Froome, the same as Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Purito, Pinot,... are good becouse his natural conditions and Lopez is not so good becouse his natural condiction, that is what really matters, but when SKY got experience in his methods in road and doping decrease they had a little advantage, that they dont have now, or they have little more.

There are anyway some years that all is perfect for a team, that everything works, and you are very lucky with illnes and crash, and there are years thats is the contrary... that have been always like this in cycling, and will be that way in a clean or dirty sport.
 
Taxus4a said:
And?

Always wil have a reason, excuse if there is doping, and real if there is not.

But Froome, the same as Contador, Nibali, Valverde, Purito, Pinot,... are good becouse his natural conditions and Lopez is not so good becouse his natural condiction, that is what really matters, but when SKY got experience in his methods in road and doping decrease they had a little advantage, that they dont have now, or they have little more.

There are anyway some years that all is perfect for a team, that everything works, and you are very lucky with illnes and crash, and there are years thats is the contrary... that have been always like this in cycling, and will be that way in a clean or dirty sport.

And being its a load of BS.

I agree with all those names except Froome.
 
The Hitch said:
For jnstance froome says bilharzia can only be treated in Africa since no one In Europe has any clue about what it is, and as a result he details biannual trios he meant to different places in Africa to get treatment. This is total horse****. There is probably more knowledge in Europe, and jn any case the simple pzq treatment can be easily administered in 50 million places in any city.

So what is your alleged experience supposed to prove. That froome misunderstood how bilharzia treatment works to the point where he underwent several hallucinations in which he imagined travelling to Africa and getting treatments.

I don't know and I don't need to know because froome doping is not reliant on him discovering a new drug himself. If his doping programme consists of a few small time drugs and the rest is talent he is still doping. The idea that froome is either 100% clean or 100% the most doped athlete and that there is no middle ground is a false dichotomy created by people clearly devoid of logic. If froome took 1 vial of epo his whole career he doped. Your position is the one with small probabilities since you claim to know exactly what number of drugs he took and you have to account for every lie he ever made and any discrepancy in his story. I don't.

To paraphrase an old political quote, you have to be right 100% of the time. I have to be right only once. And if you Cant understand that, no wonder your one of the people who believe in froome.


A couple of points regarding Bilharzia:

Froome said, and has said so since 2011, that he found out he had it in late 2010. It has been in his body for at least a year, or 2 years, maybe even longer, there's no way to know. He said it feeds on your red blood cells, which it does. He uses Praziquantel as treatment. Praziquantel is very effective against the adult worms, not so much against the eggs, the eggs can cause symptoms such as breathlessness, cough and chest pain. He was biannually tested for the disease since then and they came back positive until November 2013.

So far so good, makes sense to me.


Btw it's always admirable how the more hardened fans are willing to offer up themselves and stories of stupidity in order to defend the rider on a point. Admirable since the case against froome is so strong it's like one of those heroic last stands in the movies where the hero or hero's accept they are going to lose and take on an infinitely superior enemy for honour.

Now that part is just laughable. Hardened fan my a$$, I'm a fan of Alejandro Valverde and Marcel Kittel if you want to know. Froome, I like the way he rides, yes, but the reason I defend him is because I don't think he is doping, and that's it.
The rest of that section is just comedy. You're trying too hard man, whatever it is that you're trying to be.
I don't know and I don't need to know because froome doping is not reliant on him discovering a new drug himself. If his doping programme consists of a few small time drugs and the rest is talent he is still doping. The idea that froome is either 100% clean or 100% the most doped athlete and that there is no middle ground is a false dichotomy created by people clearly devoid of logic. If froome took 1 vial of epo his whole career he doped. Your position is the one with small probabilities since you claim to know exactly what number of drugs he took and you have to account for every lie he ever made and any discrepancy in his story. I don't.

Would you look at that, even more comedy. You just keep replying to things I haven't said :D


Most who think Froome is doping have pointed to him transforming from Grupetto-rider to potential GC-winner virtually overnight. All I'm asking is, how do you do that with doping these days?
 
Taxus4a said:
Could you explain this better, where I can find the interview?

It was discussed here intensively. For someone who has written a lot about Froome, you have amazing gaps in your knowledge base. This interview provided more information about and insight into Froome than probably anything previously written about him. Supporters and critics of Froome alike welcomed it. How you could claim or imply to be an expert on Froome without being aware of this interview is beyond me.

if Cound ment his values werent big affected by Bilharzia, yes, I agree, it is like that, but it must be a difference, of course, not with an analysis, but if he had several analysis along his illness, of course the average must be less that now, even if now he is training more.

Nobody must expect that if Froome had 45 naturally with bilharzia that is 40, it is not like that. The difference could be 2 points, no more, and it depends training, illness for crash and that is a factor that change two points easy just of the day is hot or not, maybe there is not a significant difference in a graphic.

The difference would be zero points, since schisto doesn’t affect hematocrit. Again, for someone who claims to have written thoroughly about Froome’s situation, you show surprising ignorance of key information. In fact, when you say something like "it is not like that", you have no idea what you're talking about, you're just making up stuff that fits your bias. You don't know if it is or is not like that. If you did know, you would provide specific numbers to back up your claim.

The disease can reduce hemoglobin, which means that it could have an effect on the passport, which looks at HT/Hb ratios. It's possible, as you imply, that it might have had a small effect, not detected by the passport, which could still be enough to affect his performance. But this is sheer speculation, nobody can say for sure whether it did or did not. Again, you are just claiming that it did, because it fits your story. This is very different from being able to show with certainty that it did.

But there is other evidence against this interpretation. As several of us have already pointed out, the timeline of his disease does not correlate with his performance:

1) He didn’t get worse after contracting the disease. Though he doesn't know when he got it (that in itself is rather strange, since one would think he would know when he was in Africa during that period, and how often he went swimming), it was during a period when there was no noticeable change in his performance.

2) He was first treated in December of 2010. Everything we know about the disease indicates that treatment would have largely if not entirely cured him from the disease. Yet he continued for most of the following season no better than he was before.

3) At the Vuelta he finally had his big breakthrough, but shortly after that he claimed he still had the disease and so had another treatment.

4) From the TDF 2012 to the end of 2013 he rode at his best, yet had two more treatments during that period.

Your bias also shows in that while you claim he could have the disease and an unchanged passport, you try to argue that he couldn’t blood dope without affecting his passport. Yet several papers, linked and discussed here many times, have shown how easy it is to beat the passport with either transfusions or EPO. I’m not aware of any scientific work bearing on the question of the effect of schisto on the blood passport.

Personally, I can accept that the disease could affect performance, and that even after treatment it could have an effect, because some eggs persist in the body for a while, and they release the antigens that inactivate hemoglobin. What I can't accept is that this effect abruptly stopped in late August 2011, eight months or so after the initial treatment to kill the worms. The eggs are excreted from the body gradually over a period of time, not all at once after eight months. There would be some lag in replenishing the lost Hb. One would not see the kind of change that occurred from Poland to the Vuelta.

It's possible that these and other symptoms could come and go, as a result of some eggs being retained in the body for long periods of time. I assume he did have eggs in his system for a long time, because it was their detection that indicated he needed further treatment. But Froome never experienced such symptoms. His transformation in 2011 was pretty much final. He did claim to have a chest infection in the spring of 2012, but there's no reason to think this had anything to do with schisto. These are common among riders, and he had a similar problem this spring when he was supposedly finally cured of the disease.

I also find it unlikely that a performance transformation this large, if due to a rebound in Hb levels, would not be reflected in the passport. Even if the change was not sufficient to trigger a positive, there ought to be a noticeable rise in Hb levels, and if Froome were serious about using the disease as an excuse he could request these data to show this. In fact, once Froome began thinking schisto was affecting his performance, the very logical thing to do would be to start tracking his Hb levels as a way of following the course of the disease and its treatment on his potential as a rider. Of course, other symptoms could occur, but Hb loss is a major one that would have an obvious impact on his riding, and is very easy to follow.


kingjr said:
A couple of points regarding Bilharzia:

Froome said, and has said so since 2011, that he found out he had it in late 2010. It has been in his body for at least a year, or 2 years, maybe even longer, there's no way to know. He said it feeds on your red blood cells, which it does. He uses Praziquantel as treatment. Praziquantel is very effective against the adult worms, not so much against the eggs, the eggs can cause symptoms such as breathlessness, cough and chest pain. He was biannually tested for the disease since then and they came back positive until November 2013.

The worms feed on red cells, but don’t consume enough to affect HT. To repeat, it’s the eggs that affect blood parameters, by inactivating Hb.

Most who think Froome is doping have pointed to him transforming from Grupetto-rider to potential GC-winner virtually overnight. All I'm asking is, how do you do that with doping these days?

How do you do it without doping? You seem to forget that doping and non-doping are not mutually exclusive. Anything that a non-doper can do to get better is also available to a doper. But the reverse is not true. The bigger the change in performance, the more likely it is that doping is involved.

I do agree with you and others that his transformation is hard to understand even with doping. Where I part company with you and others is in concluding that therefore he must not have doped. That conclusion makes the transformation even harder to understand than it was before.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Visit site
kingjr said:
A couple of points regarding Bilharzia:

Froome said, and has said so since 2011, that he found out he had it in late 2010. It has been in his body for at least a year, or 2 years, maybe even longer, there's no way to know. He said it feeds on your red blood cells, which it does He uses Praziquantel as treatment. Praziquantel is very effective against the adult worms, not so much against the eggs, the eggs can cause symptoms such as breathlessness, cough and chest pain. He was biannually tested for the disease since then and they came back positive until November 2013.

So far so good, makes sense to me.




Now that part is just laughable. Hardened fan my a$$, I'm a fan of Alejandro Valverde and Marcel Kittel if you want to know. Froome, I like the way he rides, yes, but the reason I defend him is because I don't think he is doping, and that's it.
The rest of that section is just comedy. You're trying too hard man, whatever it is that you're trying to be.


Would you look at that, even more comedy. You just keep replying to things I haven't said :D


Most who think Froome is doping have pointed to him transforming from Grupetto-rider to potential GC-winner virtually overnight. All I'm asking is, how do you do that with doping these days?

Wouldn't that affect/show up on his bio-passport?