stutue
BANNED
- Apr 22, 2014
- 875
- 0
- 0
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Netserk said:And altitude training.
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.
Benotti69 said:Amstrong beat Sky to the black sock revolution![]()
kingjr said:So I can somewhat empathise with Froome when he gets things wrong regarding his illness.
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.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.
That is not how it works.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
Colonel said:He never started cycling late for starters and he never showed major potential.
Why not? show me a medical article about.The Hitch said:That is not how it works.
Taxus4a said:Discuss that with the points of my article, quote them.
I showed that he did.
Could you explain this better, where I can find the interview?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!
And?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.
It is and advantage in your permormance, based in something, yes.King Boonen said:I have black socks with the white rose of Yorkshire on. Can I claim a new marginal gain?
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!
Who dies from bilharzia?Taxus4a said:Why not? show me a medical article about.
bilharzia has different typologuies, some people die, some people dont realized they have an illness.
Taxus4a said:It is and advantage in your permormance, based in something, yes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
kingjr said: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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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?