Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 619 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

S2Sturges said:
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...
No need. The UCI isn't going to mess up a good thing by turning Froome positive.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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...
Agree (or good post as they used to say here), just trying to be sarcastic and foxy here and there :)

sniper said:
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.
Good post.
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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...
There is no evidence he's been doping since the start of his career. In 2005, in his third year as a pro, his name appeared in some training documents in the Puerto case. There was no bloodbag with his name on it. The only thing that could point towards doping was a fax saying Contador should get "nothing or the same as Jaksche" at the TDF. So he may just as well have gotten "nothing".

See? I can play this game too.
 
Re:

McLovin said:
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.
yup it would be very easy....he probably did give a lot of blood...this would be the same blood (and other date) that SKY and the UCI have specifically not provided to 'prove' their new champ was clean...

you would ave thought that would be the first thing they would have done...oh...wait a minute... :)
 
Re: Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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.
indeed...after all let look at another SKY rider...our friend JTL...from pretty talented domestic rider to being in the finale of a tough Worlds...his word says it was the booze, the science says it was the BBs..

guess what BBs work...and if your up and down from altitude, disappear from races a lot...and you have zorzoli and lienders...again...insert the Ullrich quote...

there was also a nice wee throw away comment in the Kimmage/Froome interview when the bold MC interjected along the lines of "when we were doing the the research on bilharzie"...classic :)
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re: Re:

DirtyWorks said:
S2Sturges said:
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...
No need. The UCI isn't going to mess up a good thing by turning Froome positive.
They busted Bertie. They busted" suspended" Ulrich and Basso and ruined what could have been a great tour. The UCI are fu%%ing stupid at times and they seem intent on ruining things for the fans on occasions with their so called fight against drugs :D
IMO its who Froome rides for. He won't get caught.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
It's quite amusing how posters periodically chime in here, loudly proclaiming that it is metaphysically unknowable whether Froome dopes, whether he had Bazilla, whether had lied about Badzilla. That all these claims could never be substantiated to a jury consisting of SKY zealots in some kangaroo court of their vivid imagination. Which is apparently how rational observers on the internet should go about making up their mind bout teh dawg.
 
Jun 27, 2009
373
1
0
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
DirtyWorks said:
S2Sturges said:
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...
No need. The UCI isn't going to mess up a good thing by turning Froome positive.
They busted Bertie. They busted" suspended" Ulrich and Basso and ruined what could have been a great tour. The UCI are fu%%ing stupid at times and they seem intent on ruining things for the fans on occasions with their so called fight against drugs :D
IMO its who Froome rides for. He won't get caught.
So, then if he has a off Tour and Porte or whoever Sky rider takes it, there is enough media blurring and diffusing because of his various illnesses, crashes, etc etc and he can quietly slip away with the UCI's blessing, and of a job well done and everyone's reputation untarnished... Handshakes all around...
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
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.
So? Where are those papers? I am sure you have a link.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
I can't find that thread and if it has 100 pages you know I don't have the time or the will to read it all and maybe to find nothing. Thanks in advance for a link. Being a TDF winner I'm sure somewhere on the internet there is a link with that proof.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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...
There is no evidence he's been doping since the start of his career. In 2005, in his third year as a pro, his name appeared in some training documents in the Puerto case. There was no bloodbag with his name on it. The only thing that could point towards doping was a fax saying Contador should get "nothing or the same as Jaksche" at the TDF. So he may just as well have gotten "nothing".

See? I can play this game too.
And Marti was just a coach.
 
SeriousSam said:
It's quite amusing how posters periodically chime in here, loudly proclaiming that it is metaphysically unknowable whether Froome dopes, whether he had Bazilla, whether had lied about Badzilla. That all these claims could never be substantiated to a jury consisting of SKY zealots in some kangaroo court of their vivid imagination. Which is apparently how rational observers on the internet should go about making up their mind bout teh dawg.
. Lol nice post. Should be framed and put in the "guidelines to posting in the clinic" thread.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

McLovin said:
I can't find that thread and if it has 100 pages you know I don't have the time or the will to read it all and maybe to find nothing. Thanks in advance for a link. Being a TDF winner I'm sure somewhere on the internet there is a link with that proof.
A summary of that thread could look something like this:

- Froome suffered from Bilharzia and was treated for it.
- When this occurred is a bit of a mystery since Froome's story has an ever-changing timeline.
- One timeline offered by Froome is that his diagnosis and recovery coincided with his baffling improvements in 2011.
- Froome has stated that he has required multiple treatments (praziquantel) because the disease "came back".
- The above is a lie (http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) as the disease does not work this way. He would have to be re-infected back in the dodgy lakes of Kenya each time.
- Froome's own description of the disease indicates that he suffered a mild infection (i.e., no kidney damage, etc, etc) rather than a serious and chronic case which could have affected his performance in the way he describes (i.e., Froome talking about the disease eating away at his blood cells). Again, http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/ will clarify this.

At very best, Froome is very confused and does not even remotely understand the basics of the disease that undermined his pro career. Most likely is that he is lying in multiple ways. Why he would do that is open to speculation, but the way he ties it to his transformation is a nifty piece of evidence.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
LaFlorecita said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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...
There is no evidence he's been doping since the start of his career. In 2005, in his third year as a pro, his name appeared in some training documents in the Puerto case. There was no bloodbag with his name on it. The only thing that could point towards doping was a fax saying Contador should get "nothing or the same as Jaksche" at the TDF. So he may just as well have gotten "nothing".

See? I can play this game too.
And Marti was just a coach.
Yep, and Leinders was just hired to treat saddle sores.
 
Actually, if froome had suffered from chronic bilharzia and suffered kidney damage, he wouldn't have been able to cure it with pzq since all that does is remove the disease, not magically undo all the damage it has already done.

But no froome isn't at best confused. That he is lying is beyond doubt. No matter how much benefit of doubt, no matter which story one chooses to believe, all of them end up hitting a wall.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
- Froome has stated that he has required multiple treatments (praziquantel) because the disease "came back".
- The above is a lie (http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) as the disease does not work this way. He would have to be re-infected back in the dodgy lakes of Kenya each time.
Actually, it's perfectly possible he required multiple treatments. Praziquantel is effective against the larval stage and adult worms, but not very effect against juvenile worms and completely ineffective against eggs. While one treatment is usually fine it is not at all uncommon for someone to receive a longer course of treatment. This longer course of treatment also takes a slightly different format to most long treatments. You would be treated, go away for a couple of weeks or so, be re-examined or return with similar symptoms and treated again. It's perfectly possible that a lay man could interpret this series of events as the disease "coming back".
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
ScienceIsCool said:
- Froome has stated that he has required multiple treatments (praziquantel) because the disease "came back".
- The above is a lie (http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) as the disease does not work this way. He would have to be re-infected back in the dodgy lakes of Kenya each time.
Actually, it's perfectly possible he required multiple treatments. Praziquantel is effective against the larval stage and adult worms, but not very effect against juvenile worms and completely ineffective against eggs. While one treatment is usually fine it is not at all uncommon for someone to receive a longer course of treatment. This longer course of treatment also takes a slightly different format to most long treatments. You would be treated, go away for a couple of weeks or so, be re-examined or return with similar symptoms and treated again. It's perfectly possible that a lay man could interpret this series of events as the disease "coming back".
My understanding was that, as you describe, a second course is required if after a few weeks eggs are being found in the urine or stool. That's really not what Froome described at all. He was talking many months between treatments. Anyways, I'm thinking that further discussion probably belongs in the Badzhilla thread that McLovin is allergic to.

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
ScienceIsCool said:
bigcog said:
Didn't realise there were so many qualified doctors on here, with a specialism in tropical medicine lol
This is a very accessible and informative site for laymen. http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/

lol
Yes, I can read that site and multiple others, still doesn't make me qualified to talk about it, just like you lol
You're being silly. If basic assertions (ex: symptoms, treatments and outcomes of a common disease) are backed up with facts from a reliable source (Cambridge research group), then anybody can talk about any subject with a fair amount of authority.

To suggest otherwise is to say that a journalist could not report the news...

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
bigcog said:
ScienceIsCool said:
bigcog said:
Didn't realise there were so many qualified doctors on here, with a specialism in tropical medicine lol
This is a very accessible and informative site for laymen. http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/

lol
Yes, I can read that site and multiple others, still doesn't make me qualified to talk about it, just like you lol
You're being silly. If basic assertions (ex: symptoms, treatments and outcomes of a common disease) are backed up with facts from a reliable source (Cambridge research group), then anybody can talk about any subject with a fair amount of authority.

To suggest otherwise is to say that a journalist could not report the news...

John Swanson
Yes, everyone can have opinion but some opinions (usually based on qualification and experience) are more valuable than others, aren't they ? Otherwise what is the point of said professional qualifications ? You're example is not a particularly good one ...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
McLovin said:
I can't find that thread and if it has 100 pages you know I don't have the time or the will to read it all and maybe to find nothing. Thanks in advance for a link. Being a TDF winner I'm sure somewhere on the internet there is a link with that proof.
A summary of that thread could look something like this:

- Froome suffered from Bilharzia and was treated for it.
- When this occurred is a bit of a mystery since Froome's story has an ever-changing timeline.
- One timeline offered by Froome is that his diagnosis and recovery coincided with his baffling improvements in 2011.
- Froome has stated that he has required multiple treatments (praziquantel) because the disease "came back".
- The above is a lie (http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/) as the disease does not work this way. He would have to be re-infected back in the dodgy lakes of Kenya each time.
- Froome's own description of the disease indicates that he suffered a mild infection (i.e., no kidney damage, etc, etc) rather than a serious and chronic case which could have affected his performance in the way he describes (i.e., Froome talking about the disease eating away at his blood cells). Again, http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~schisto/ will clarify this.

At very best, Froome is very confused and does not even remotely understand the basics of the disease that undermined his pro career. Most likely is that he is lying in multiple ways. Why he would do that is open to speculation, but the way he ties it to his transformation is a nifty piece of evidence.

John Swanson
good post, thanks.
he also offered differing accounts as to who discovered the bilharzia in his body.
one account was that some UCI medical center discovered it, another that one of his South African doctors discovered it. There's at least one lie there.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

Ah. You don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. Let's fix that.

opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. <an example might be that orange is the best color, or Froome is the most obvious doper since Rob Ford>

fact: A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. <ex: it's a fact that adult schistomes (Bilharzia worms) do not reproduce inside the host, and it's a fact that qualifications have no bearings on what the facts are>

Experts are needed when you want to hear an informed opinion related to a vast and/or disparate range of facts. Can people survive the trip to Mars? Better to get an opinion from NASA. Did Badzhilla "flare up" in Froome several months after treatment? Nope. Doesn't work like that.

John Swanson
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY