Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 618 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

McLovin said:
The link between 1-2 is that I tried to point out the potential exclusivity of that potential drug.
And for 3, I said THAT MANY THINGS ARE WEIRD, BUT.... .
And I don't see any of that evidence you claim there are out there. Where is Fromme's O'Reilly or something like that? 4 years and not a single minor leak?
Again, it doesn't have to be some magic drug. There are now numerous cases of biological profiles simply ignored by the UCI. The only thing the UCI needs to do is not sanction the guy. It's not like he's some special case either.

The CIRC report clearly states the federation chose a rider/team to favor to grow the sport. It's happened again.

Maybe this time they are going the Athletics Kenya route and cycling through athletes?

What we know for sure is Froome has, once again, put in a wildly inconsistent performance somehow returning to his elite, but not grand tour, performances.
 
Re: Re:

harryh said:
But yeah, I wonder as well which kind of drug transforms small engine to a large one so quickly? Well, obviously the magic drug didn't work for Carlström or maybe he just hadn't access to it, which is a shame.
EPO. It works very well when it is "the thing" you are missing to turn an athlete into a grand tour winner.

The old example, JV vs Armstrong. JV always claimed it wasn't "the thing" that would put him on a grand tour podium.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
EPO. It works very well when it is "the thing" you are missing to turn an athlete into a grand tour winner.
Overnight? In 2-3 weeks? Sounds so easy. I think almost every hard training elite endurance athletes lack red cells...maybe they just have so high moral that they don't know want to try a couple of days of EPO although it would transform them to champions :rolleyes:
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re:

Netserk said:
I guess when Riis transformed he must've been on something unique, since not every single rider who took epo transformed like him :rolleyes:
Riis doped? news to me. As far as I know there was no evidence at the time so he must have been clean.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

McLovin said:
Is this a fact that he lied? There are medical papers? If so, you're right.
I don't think Sir Dave has confirmed it in a press release yet, so yes, there is no obviously no evidence Froome lied.
 
Re:

harryh said:
I mean they are talented but Froome isn't, so Contador would have beaten him minutes in TdF 2013 with the secret blood bag-method.
the only thing secret is Froome's data pre-transformation....

the fittest man on the planet hiding in the pro-peleton...who would have thunk it...
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
McLovin said:
Is this a fact that he lied? There are medical papers? If so, you're right.
I don't think Sir Dave has confirmed it in a press release yet, so yes, there is no obviously no evidence Froome lied.
Ok. I'm confused. Hitch said it's a fact.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
the only thing secret is Froome's data pre-transformation....
No need to release the pre data since everyone already knows that he was untalented and had a small engine and two weeks later he had one of the largest engine ever.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re:

McLovin said:
Is this a fact that he lied? There are medical papers? If so, you're right.
what evidence do you have that he had badzilla in the first place? Have you seen the medical papers?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
I did not said that he had bilharzia. But apparently some people here know for sure that he wasn't sic with that disease and this is HUGE. It's like Armstrong on Oprah. It's game over for Froome with a lie like that.
IMO it's very easy to know if he had it or not as he gave a lot of blood to UCI from 2008 to 2011. Even in late 2011, whole 2012 and first few months of 2013 I remember he said he still had the parasite. This after the story was made up/or not.
 
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
McLovin said:
The link between 1-2 is that I tried to point out the potential exclusivity of that potential drug.
And for 3, I said THAT MANY THINGS ARE WEIRD, BUT.... .
And I don't see any of that evidence you claim there are out there. Where is Fromme's O'Reilly or something like that? 4 years and not a single minor leak?
Again, it doesn't have to be some magic drug. There are now numerous cases of biological profiles simply ignored by the UCI. The only thing the UCI needs to do is not sanction the guy. It's not like he's some special case either.

The CIRC report clearly states the federation chose a rider/team to favor to grow the sport. It's happened again.

Maybe this time they are going the Athletics Kenya route and cycling through athletes?

What we know for sure is Froome has, once again, put in a wildly inconsistent performance somehow returning to his elite, but not grand tour, performances.
To the bolded bit, why?

The timing is weird.

You've a shiny new doping doc since the end of the previous season, yet the chosen one (Froome) doesn't show any improvement until the end of the following season, why wasn't Froome ripping fields apart (or at least showing a little bit of form) earlier in the season?

Not to mention that Froome was virtually at the end of his contract, surely if you were Sky you'd either have him on the dope all season and get some good results whilst you're paying him peanuts, or sign him to a new cheap contract and give him the good stuff over the winter and sit back and watch the results the following year. All they did (if they doped him) was vastly improve his negotiating position and cost themselves $$$$.

Surely the more likely scenario is that Froome's doping in 2011 was DIY, which forced Sky to give him a nice new contract and take his doping in house.

Either way I can't see why Froome would have protection from testing positive for his Vuelta performance, from 2012 onwards I can easily see this, pre that not so much so.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
we know Froome went from GT packfodder to 2nd in the vuelta 2011.
we know Zorzoli sits on Froome's pre-vuelta 2011 data.
we know Sky don't want us to see Froome's pre-vuelta 2011 data.
we know Sky hired Leinders.
we know Leinders and Zorzoli were close.
those are facts, anybody correct me if i'm wrong.
everything else is Jan Ulrich arithmetics.
 
Re:

McLovin said:
Is this a fact that he lied? There are medical papers? If so, you're right.
Yes. This has been known for almost 2 years now. Whis is why I don't understand why you keep coming in here every 2 months to say "no evidence" then disapear. How can you know there's no evidence if you don't read the threads.

Medical papers, medical textbooks, doctors themselves all directly contradict Froome's claims. Not only that, his own claims now contradict his earlier claims. At first he said the reason he became good in 2011 and won the 2013 TDF was because he was cured of Bilharzia. Now he claims he was not cured of Bilharzia until December 2013 and won all those races despite having Bilharzia. The same disease that supposedly explains why he couldn't ride well in the first place.

He also changed his own stories. First the UCI found out he had Bilharzia and told him. Now he says that never happened and his brother told him to get himself tested for Bilharzia. Its clear as day from every angle, he made it up, and that to me and any rational non troll is clear evidence.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
@Hitch & @ Sniper. If, by chance, you would be a lawyer for this case....are you aware of your winning chances? I'm talking about facts. My english is not perfect but I know what facts are. Show me those medical papers and textbooks that confirm that he never had that disease.
 
Re:

McLovin said:
@Hitch & @ Sniper. If, by chance, you would be a lawyer for this case....are you aware of your winning chances? I'm talking about facts. My english is not perfect but I know what facts are. Show me those medical papers and textbooks that confirm that he never had that disease.
How about you go find the work that would somehow confirm your opinions on the matter? Then we can compare.
Start with public health research on Biharizza.
Then find all those times Froomie tells the same story about Badzhilla.
Then find the basic treatment routines for Badzhilla.

Or just do nothing and see how well that makes your case.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
You don't understand. Look at my number of posts and my join date. See? I don't care. But since some people here wrote novels I was expecting to find something with a base, not gibberish (sorry for this word). I would be happy if all the dopers are caught in this second. I just think, and I repeat myself, this is like Seinfeld, the thread about nothing.
 
Re:

McLovin said:
You don't understand. Look at my number of posts and my join date. See? I don't care. But since some people here wrote novels I was expecting to find something with a base, not gibberish (sorry for this word). I would be happy if all the dopers are caught in this second. I just think, and I repeat myself, this is like Seinfeld, the thread about nothing.
It's about nothing because you refuse to expend any effort at all.

I guess we can wrap this one up then. Good news! I'm world road race champion. Whatever you do be consistent and don't use that Internet thing to test the claim. :rolleyes:
 
Re:

McLovin said:
@Hitch & @ Sniper. If, by chance, you would be a lawyer for this case....are you aware of your winning chances? I'm talking about facts. My english is not perfect but I know what facts are. Show me those medical papers and textbooks that confirm that he never had that disease.
If "Did Chris Froome lie about Bilharzia" ever went to a jury, it would be one of the quickest trials in world history. It is 100% certain and froome probably wouldn't even bother turning up to defend himself.

So to remind you of what you said earlier-yes its a fact he lied, and that means I am right. (according to your words)
Is this a fact that he lied? There are medical papers? If so, you're right.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re:

McLovin said:
Ok, but how is possible that a rider with relatively small salary finds something so good and so only for him and how come this exclusivity is lasting even after almost 4 years?
OK outside of alien-outer-space drugs, being the 6-Mio-$-Man reincarnation, or some obscure guy in the back "invested" in Froomes super-duper-doping, lets go with the most likely: He was clean before Poland, had his job in jeopardy, and turned to good ol BBs as everybody else of the GT contenders did.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re:

harryh said:
I mean they are talented but Froome isn't, so Contador would have beaten him minutes in TdF 2013 with the secret blood bag-method.
We dont know how talented AC is without BBs. He is on doping since at least turning pro. May Froome and AC are on the same talent level clean. We dont know...
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re:

ray j willings said:
Sky are part of a huge media cooperation network that works in favour of its own agenda.
Froome will not get caught riding at Sky.
Thanks for making that point... Murdoch and Sky can easily strong arm and manipulate the media to suit...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY