Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[stutue]

I can't see very much in the way of defence of Sky coming from the alleged Sky fans. Just a critique of some of the arguments and, in my current case, an unsatisfactorily answered request for an explanation as to the utter assymetry of accusation and investigation levelled at different riders and teams. One seems like a concerted campaign. The others, well...there is almost no effort put in.

 

[Hawkwood]

I can't see very much in the way of defence of Sky coming from the alleged Sky fans. Just a critique of some of the arguments and, in my current case, an unsatisfactorily answered request for an explanation as to the utter assymetry of accusation and investigation.

The reaction is like something out of the Middle ages. Bit uncalled for.

I'd agree. The moment someone queries something posted by a hater they become a `Sky fan', or `fan boy', or get accused (in my case) of being a banned `Sky fan' poster returned under a diferent guise.

 

[RownhamHill]

I'd agree. The moment someone queries something posted by a hater they become a `Sky fan', or `fan boy', or get accused (in my case) of being a banned `Sky fan' poster returned under a diferent guise.

Bot. The correct usage is 'skybot'.

 

[M Sport]

Well there are way more people who believe froome is doping, than clean. Just like there are way more people that believe the world is round than flat.

Both wrong, the earth is a spheroid.

 

[The Hitch]

Do you mean on the forum `there are way more people who believe froome is doping...'?

No, not on the forum, in general. Well to start with doubt for Froome exists on all cycling forums on all languages. On Foro de ciclismo the Froome threads read like the Nibali or Contador threads here. Everyone saying he dopes and laughing at him, one person saying he is clean - Taxus, and FDC is a very big forum. I'm told that its the same on scandinavian forums, dutch forums, Italian forums etc. Quite clearly on twitter too.

And if you want to discount the internet as something only froome haters have access too (which wouldn't be that unrealistic since Froome's doubters are so much more informed than his believers it would stand to reason that they have access to some super information tool that the former do not) Froome doubt has been surprisingly prevalent in the media, way more than for Armstrong or for any non caught athlete. The main danish newspaper did a poll of its readers last year and 80% said Froome dopes When Walsh was on the Irish radio show the shows presenters told him that they where overwhelmed by the messages they received and that the vast majority of those messages were anti Froome/Walsh and pro Kimmage/sceptics

I know the Romanian ES commentators were laughing at Froome in 2013. One of the main French commentators (Vasseur, I think) questioned him live on France 1 commentary during the TDF, plenty of well known cycling journos in France - Vayer, that other Lemonde journo.

Add to that the experience of cycling over the last 20 years, and the fact that "they all dope" has become somewhat of a default position, you really think there is anyone who isn't heavily motivated by massive national bias who watches some unknown rider do Ventoux as fast as Armstrong, smash times of dopers, then post the 5th fastest tt in TDF history, and doesn't immediately think he doped

I really don't get why Sky's diehards keep acting like the clinic is the only place Froome doubt exists. Its a grain of sand in the desert. If anythink Froome fans are overrepresented here.

 

[Taxus4a]

I don't have the link, but Froome is on record giving a general time period during which he probably contracted the disease, and it was well after he turned pro. He's never claimed he had it long before he started riding.



Because he was sick. He had a chest infection. He had symptoms that would be perfectly unremarkable for someone with no history of schisto. Also, he was diagnosed in March 2012 with typhoid and blastocytosis (see below). Those are at least as likely a cause of poor performance as schisto.

I rechecked my original post on the timeline. According to the article discussed there, Froome actually had five, not four treatments. The first was in October or soon after in 2010. (Edit: He was given PZQ over four days. The longer the period over which the drug is given, the more effective the treatment is. This makes it even more unlikely that this first treatment wouldn't cure the disease). The second was in June 2011. That is closer to the Vuelta that year, but it’s still a stretch to say that it could account for the big change in a few weeks between Poland and Spain, particularly when he was given a third treatment that November. If he had claimed that the second treatment cured him completely, he would have at least a little better case that maybe his Hb levels were still recovering at Poland, but by his own account, that treatment did not cure him.

He had a fourth treatment in March 2012, when he was diagnosed with other diseases. Then he underwent yet another round of tests in 2013—long after his early 2012 performances were over, and he had experienced a continuous string of strong performances on the bike—when he was given a fifth treatment with PZQ.

So again, the timeline doesn’t correlate with his performances. His first treatment in the fall of 2010 was not followed by a noticeably better performance for most of 2011. Even if that treatment did not fully cure him of the disease, it should have greatly reduced his worm burden and resulted in a major improvement in performance, if that was in fact what had been hindering him before. His second treatment in June 2011 was not followed by any performance benefit in Poland. He did have his breakout in the Vuelta, but then a couple of months later he was told he still wasn’t cured and needed another treatment. To the marvel of the medical profession, even that third treatment wasn’t enough, so he had a fourth the following spring. That was correlated with a return to his Vuelta performance, but he has said that he was diagnosed with other diseases and was treated for those, too. Then he rode very well in both the Tour that year and the Vuelta, considering it was his second consecutive GT. He rode very well all spring in 2013 and dominated the TDF, yet he was diagnosed yet again with disease and treated during that period.

So Froome's claim is that he was not fully cured of schisto until some time in 2013 when he had the fifth treatment. The implication is that at any time up to then, any poor performance of his could be attributed to the disease. But from the 2011 Vuelta through 2013, he never had a poor performance, except in the spring of 2012, when he was reported to have other serious health problems. Except for that one period, which can be very adequately explained, he was fine after the 2011 Vuelta.

Moreover, even if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and argue that his poor performance in early 2012 was the result of the schisto, why did this never happen before or since? In all the years he had schisto prior to the 2011 Vuelta, he was not up and down. He was consistently at a lower level.

Do you want to argue that once he started getting treatments, he had a temporary remission? But he had no improvement in performance after his first treatment in 2010, and it seems he got worse after his third treatment in 2011. Maybe that was because those occurred at the end of the season, and the benefits did not extend to the following racing season. But why would that be? After any treatment, the worm burden is going to decrease, which means the amount of eggs produced over time will decrease. This is not a temporary benefit. Even with the lower worm burden, there may still be a net accumulation of eggs, but it can't be worse than it was before the treatment. A treatment doesn't reduce the egg burden. It slows down the increase in this burden, and this effect is permanent.

Moreover, after his fourth treatment in 2012, the remission wasn't temporary, it was permanent, performance wise. Yet he was still diagnosed with schisto the following year and treated again.

I dont know exactly how the treatment works, if is something at the moment or take some time, but he could be better of the disease in Poland, but still afected in performance, and he needed race, trainig and a new race to perform better.

In 2012 and 2013 the disease it was still in his system, but that doenst mean affecting him, you must read more about bilharzia, I cant explain well with my english, but a bear sleeping in winter dont eat the honey I produce...bilharzia sometimes sleep but it is not out at all.

 

[thrawn]

I can't see very much in the way of defence of Sky coming from the alleged Sky fans. Just a critique of some of the arguments and, in my current case, an unsatisfactorily answered request for an explanation as to the utter assymetry of accusation and investigation levelled at different riders and teams. One seems like a concerted campaign. The others, well...there is almost no effort put in.

I suggest you go and check the older threads of the forum. It has a history of discussing whoever the best gc rider/s are at the time. The clinic used to be dominated by Armstrong discussion, then by Contador discussion, then by Sky discussion. So simply, it is usually the biggest fish that is discussed the most, and currently that is Froome.

Contador isn't discussed in as much detail now as it has already been done and dusted. There were likely 10k+ posts on Contador doping from 2009-2011. We know he's doping, we know to a certain extent the methods he was using to dope, so what's left to discuss? Additionally nobody is really here claiming Contador is clean or posting demanding more proof.

Most of the people you are deriding have posted on other cyclists/teams doping threads. You seem to only spend time posting about Sky/Froome. Wonder why that is?

 

[The Hitch]

I dont know exactly how the treatment works.

I think that's the first sensible thing youve ever posted. Well done.

 

[Taxus4a]

No, not on the forum, in general. Well to start with doubt for Froome exists on all cycling forums on all languages. On Foro de ciclismo the Froome threads read like the Nibali or Contador threads here. Everyone saying he dopes and laughing at him, one person saying he is clean - Taxus, and FDC is a very big forum. I'm told that its the same on scandinavian forums, dutch forums, Italian forums etc. Quite clearly on twitter too.

And if you want to discount the internet as something only froome haters have access too (which wouldn't be that unrealistic since Froome's doubters are so much more informed than his believers it would stand to reason that they have access to some super information tool that the former do not) Froome doubt has been surprisingly prevalent in the media, way more than for Armstrong or for any non caught athlete. The main danish newspaper did a poll of its readers last year and 80% said Froome dopes When Walsh was on the Irish radio show the shows presenters told him that they where overwhelmed by the messages they received and that the vast majority of those messages were anti Froome/Walsh and pro Kimmage/sceptics

I know the Romanian ES commentators were laughing at Froome in 2013. One of the main French commentators (Vasseur, I think) questioned him live on France 1 commentary during the TDF, plenty of well known cycling journos in France - Vayer, that other Lemonde journo.

There are plenty of english language journos who have called froome out for Bull**** even though they can't outright say he doped like Stokes, Tom English,


I really don't get why Sky's diehards keep acting like the clinic is the only place Froome doubt exists. Its a grain of sand in the desert. If anythink Froome fans are overrepresented here.

Of course, but people that belive in Froome or in cycling in general dont go to forums to writte.
And I am not an sky fan.
I have to admit his role in the new cycling, but I dont like technology, and I dont like teams with money, I prefer clasic cycling, but I dont like doping era, althouh it was spectacular.
I admit i have folowed Uran the most in recent cycling, and he rode for SKY, and as well, I liked Froome and Augustyn when they were at Barlowold, Zipi and Zape, as I used to call them, but I liked them as most of the members of 85-86 generation.
I love cycling and I dont like doping.

 

[Taxus4a]

I think that's the first sensible thing youve ever posted. Well done.

Do you know how it works? tell me.
As far as I know it is that way, it is not to have the treatment and tomorrow you are fine, and of course, to start to be free of disease (or not free, but without his effect) doent mean perform well tomorrow, you need race and training.

 

[stutue]

You seem to only spend time posting about Sky/Froome. Wonder why that is?

Funnily enough, the Sceptic made the claim that 90% of my posting was in Sky threads. I checked my posting history and in the latest two pages I had posted on one Sky related thread and the rest (94%) were in non-Sky threads.

As for the other points you raise, I tend to hit the 'new posts' button and respond to what is there. Guess what tends to be there...

I can understand why Sky would have been a focus in 2012 and 2013, but 2014? No. It doesn't make sense.

 

[the sceptic]

I have to congratulate Taxus on possibly being the only person left on CN forums to still believe Froome is clean. I mean, the other skyfans have moved on to "not sure" a long time ago.

 

[thrawn]

Funnily enough, the Sceptic made the claim that 90% of my posting was in Sky threads. I checked my posting history and in the latest two pages I had posted on one Sky related thread and the rest (94%) were in non-Sky threads.

As for the other points you raise, I tend to hit the 'new posts' button and respond to what is there. Guess what tends to be there...

I can understand why Sky would have been a focus in 2012 and 2013, but 2014? No. It doesn't make sense.

Because Froome is probably the best, or at least 2nd best GC rider on the planet still? He's had a decent season before his crashes.

 

[stutue]

Because Froome is probably the best, or at least 2nd best GC rider on the planet still? He's had a decent season before his crashes.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp

36th in CQ. Not definitive, I accept, but it shows he's a long way off the top. Nibali is 2nd, Contador 8th.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp

36th in CQ. Not definitive, I accept, but it shows he's a long way off the top. Nibali is 2nd, Contador 8th.

Now you are being disingenuous.

Are you trying to troll here?

 

[thehog]

I have to congratulate Taxus on possibly being the only person left on CN forums to still believe Froome is clean. I mean, the other skyfans have moved on to "not sure" a long time ago.

Not just clean but cleans!

 

[The Hitch]

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp

36th in CQ. Not definitive, I accept, but it shows he's a long way off the top. Nibali is 2nd, Contador 8th.

So if Froome wins the Vuelta and jumps into top 10, will we be able to say that he went from 36th best rider in the world to 10th best, overnight?

 

[King Boonen]

I think you are right and wrong. Short term you are right. The forum will have 50 posts a second on froome if he wins regardless of whether there are people defending him or not.

But long term I think the emotional response to everything froome does is in a very large part a result of the 3 year experience of arguing with his defenders on here or reading the comments, often thoroughly insulting ones made in his defense in the media.

I think if Nibali fans started today to come on here and play forum wars over Nibali bring clean you'll get a similar emotional reaction a few years down the line.

Not as big though, since the froome hate is also motivated by a) his late extreme transformation b) some of the cycling things he has said about rivals or cycling (e.g. anti descending) c) some of the arrogant thing he has said jn his book, d) his partners behaviour - no one even knows cenzos wife's name, e) unexciting (at least compared to Nibali contador or Quintana) riding style and strategy.

You're right of course, I completely agree. I do think an off-hand comment I made is being taken a little too seriously though...

Oh, Nibs is clean

 

[Merckx index]

I have to congratulate Taxus on possibly being the only person left on CN forums to still believe Froome is clean. I mean, the other skyfans have moved on to "not sure" a long time ago.

I'm not sure this is the case at all. Last I heard, RR still thinks Froome is clean, along with several retired riders whose opinions have generally been respected here, e.g., Lemond. This is another reason why the Froome debate rages on here. The issue has not been settled among those interested, so why shouldn't there be debate? Speaking for myself, that's why I continue to participate in the argument. I don't see any problem with it at all.

Also, it's not entirely correct to say that the Contador debate is over. Robbie Canuck still argues that Contador was unfairly sanctioned, and Franklin argues that CB contamination of Euro meat is a real problem. I suggest Stutue read through some of their posts if he thinks it's all about Froome. Some of this debate occurred just a couple of months ago. The only reason it doesn't generate as much thread volume as Froome is because there aren't as many people willing to defend Contador any more. Robbie is mostly a loner now; there may be some others who sympathize with him, but since the decision has come down and been served, others have moved on. But if there were just two or three others taking his position, the debate over Contador, at times, would be every bit as ferocious and post-generating as that over Froome.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm not sure this is the case at all. Last I heard, RR still thinks Froome is clean.

Rr hasn't defended froome in over year and in that time made several posts to the contrary.

 

[stutue]

So if Froome wins the Vuelta and jumps into top 10, will we be able to say that he went from 36th best rider in the world to 10th best, overnight?

The argument was that Froome was still No. 1 GC rider. Whilst he isn't 36th, he clearly isn't 1st.

One look at his palmares of this year compared to last years will tell you as much. "A decent season" ≠ No.1

 

[The Hitch]

The argument was that Froome was still No. 1 GC rider. Whilst he isn't 36th, he clearly isn't 1st.

One look at his palmares of this year compared to last years will tell you as much. "A decent season" ≠ No.1

Avoiding my point eh? Typical. The emphasis was on the word "overnight" and how by your current method of determining gc strength you will have to concede froomes 2014 vuelta performance -providing he goes well, as a overnight transformation seeing how he will have gone from -wherever you rank him at based on 2 non completed gts, to being a top gt rider again.

Of course you yourself know your system is flawed and we both know you use it just to bait.by your standard someone like zubeldia is presently 10 x the gt rider froome is.

 

[Tonton]

The argument was that Froome was still No. 1 GC rider. Whilst he isn't 36th, he clearly isn't 1st.

One look at his palmares of this year compared to last years will tell you as much. "A decent season" ≠ No.1

The argument was that Froome is one of the two best GC riders. And he is. Now in order to win the TdF, you must make it your only objective of the year (since the '90s its a fact: see Big Mig, LA). Other races are tune ups. So miss/abandon on the TdF and you get low in the (stpid) rankings. The story of putting all your eggs in one basket. BTW the rankings: Bouhani 10th in the world? Mouhaha. What a joke...

Froome and Dopador are the two best GC riders. I don't think there's a debate here, unless you want to throw Nibs in there (and there's a thread about it).

 

[stutue]

I disagree. You have to make it your only Grand Tour objective of the year.

Froome is only as good as his season's results. Whether he crashed out is irrelevant.

 

[mrhender]

Funnily enough, the Sceptic made the claim that 90% of my posting was in Sky threads. I checked my posting history and in the latest two pages I had posted on one Sky related thread and the rest (94%) were in non-Sky threads.

As for the other points you raise, I tend to hit the 'new posts' button and respond to what is there. Guess what tends to be there...

I can understand why Sky would have been a focus in 2012 and 2013, but 2014? No. It doesn't make sense.

To the bolded......


Maybe not to you. But many people here does not belive that the inconsistency of Team SKY should let them of the hook...
Someone (SKY) claiming to have found the holy grail, should just not be performing and talking like a pendulum...

For the record there's a thread called "will contador be juiced again upon his return" this thread has quite a few post's and the discussion when he failed in 2013 was indeed in focus even though he "failed"...

Furthermore you must recognize that you yourself are helping to increase -the same focus that you blame so much right....?

If you really intent to move focus, if it matters to you.
Then maybe try to use some of that energy and drive in the clinic's Nibali or contador thread, or whatever earns focus to you..
You cannot add to the focus, then only to critizice it...

Last point... This is the Froome thread, anything other than focusing on him here could be against forum rules, and the whole point of indivuídual threads created by users... No one is stopping you from creating another "inherent" thread or the likes of it, if you want to move focus that is...