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

red_flanders said:
Pantani Attacks said:
It's definitely heat activated dope...he looked normal today

This is what passes for a "bad day" for Froome.

Crazy!
He's like Serena Williams among "real" ladies. It's like me playing basketball with newborns
there's no competition. There's no point (frankly,he's not even entertaining)

I would like to see Quintana,Contador and Nibali fighting each other to test themselves realistically. Next year guys, you should go to the Giro or la Vuelta and refuse to take part in this farce
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
Re: Re:

rainman said:
I think quite a bit of this undermines what should be the arguement here.
, ie is he doping and are Sky lying through their teeth.
Like his 'dirty weekend' - he was with his wife for Gods sake. References to the Python story are no longer helpful either. If he had a cruel streak as a kid it doesn't mean he's still delinquent. Why undermine the valid points you make with ridiculous asides that just show you up as vindictive with some axe to grind that has nothing to do with the doping question?

mate, read my recent post where i explain why all the top GC riders will be p!$$ed. I have an empathy for them. They are in the no-win situation. They have to "publicly" lie. the quotes are referring to the Insider v the Outsider. They are not lying to me and the Insider, when we full well know they are charged to their eyeballs, like most of the peloton.

But I did however calculate the pattern of the mistruths. Or "public" lies. The problem with one in the media and on the record, it allows those who are following to go back and search this record. And triangulate contradictions and conflicts. Armstrong left an entire congressional archive to be mined on his lies.

yes, I always navigate life with a conscious brain, you might try it, and with respect to cycling, if something sounds like bull$h!t invariable it will be bovine scatology of the highest order cos it had to pass thru six cow stomachs and associate enzymes, so if it comes out with a bit of bile, that is the half-dozen parts of cow stomach.

you might like triangulating a series of mistruths?

:
hacking i)
hotel OOC ii)
rabbits iii)
tenerife limited hangout^ iv)
post tdf testing limited hangout* v)
freeze blood and urine samples limited hangout* vi)
LRP
punched by one i)
confronts another fan ii)

*from Radcliffe script

there will be myriad of others. do you wish me to start a thread for it?
 
Jul 5, 2011
858
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
rainman said:
I think quite a bit of this undermines what should be the arguement here.
, ie is he doping and are Sky lying through their teeth.
Like his 'dirty weekend' - he was with his wife for Gods sake. References to the Python story are no longer helpful either. If he had a cruel streak as a kid it doesn't mean he's still delinquent. Why undermine the valid points you make with ridiculous asides that just show you up as vindictive with some axe to grind that has nothing to do with the doping question?

mate, read my recent post where i explain why all the top GC riders will be p!$$ed. I have an empathy for them. They are in the no-win situation. They have to "publicly" lie. the quotes are referring to the Insider v the Outsider. They are not lying to me and the Insider, when we full well know they are charged to their eyeballs, like most of the peloton.


But I did however calculate the pattern of the mistruths. Or "public" lies. The problem with one in the media and on the record, it allows those who are following to go back and search this record. And triangulate contradictions and conflicts. Armstrong left an entire congressional archive to be mined on his lies.

yes, I always navigate life with a conscious brain, you might try it, and with respect to cycling, if something sounds like bull$h!t invariable it will be bovine scatology of the highest order cos it had to pass thru six cow stomachs and associate enzymes, so if it comes out with a bit of bile, that is the half-dozen parts of cow stomach.

you might like triangulating a series of mistruths?

:
hacking i)
hotel OOC ii)
rabbits iii)
tenerife limited hangout^ iv)
post tdf testing limited hangout* v)
freeze blood and urine samples limited hangout* vi)
LRP
punched by one i)
confronts another fan ii)

*from Radcliffe script

there will be myriad of others. do you wish me to start a thread for it?
No that is all fine for me apart from the rabbits bit. As I said you make valid points, questions that need answering, so there is never any reason to muddy the waters with stuff that sounds like schoolboys swapping smutty stories behind the bike shed.
 
Jul 14, 2014
197
0
0
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Pantani Attacks said:
It's definitely heat activated dope...he looked normal today

This is what passes for a "bad day" for Froome.

I dont think it was a bad day for Froome. He just choose not too attack the rest as his 2 domestiques put all the best GC riders in the world at there limit. Froome could have attacked and dropped everyone at any point.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
2
0
Re: Re:

rainman said:
No that is all fine for me apart from the rabbits bit. As I said you make valid points, questions that need answering, so there is never any reason to muddy the waters with stuff that sounds like schoolboys swapping smutty stories behind the bike shed.

if you look at my overarching point, i am saying this pattern of mistruths puts the credulity at stake of anything they will say.

now, I listed numerous quotes, some of which will be the truth. But it does not undermine my meta truth. There will be individual times i miscontrue a factual account for another lie, so you could say i am wrong. But if you assess my analysis and how I have come to pay no stock in their bona fides, i am well within my sentient rights to lend no credulity for whatever squeak they utter
 
Jun 28, 2014
120
0
0
A group coming in at the same time with wheel suckers, okay I can buy it. I can believe that was a clean effort. I don't believe the people I'm seeing at the front of that group taking monster oulls, chasing poeple down, and then coming back to the front for another pull only to say "Mmm, haven't dug that deep in awhile," like the past two mountain stages wouldn't have putting that rider in the same position.
 
Dear Wiggo said:
Cycle Chic said:
bigcog said:
Cycle Chic said:
**** the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum 10m10 minutes ago
Vayer asks about the violent accelerations and the heart rate not moving and asks is it a motorised bike connected to a blue tooth system

Finally !!

How would that work then ? Blue tooth connection from what to where exactly ? Or is it another bs fantasy ?

to the team car - could explain why he gets on the radio before every attack and while he was climbing on Ventoux...they control the speed.

Bluetooth has a standard range of ~10m. Wireless makes far more sense - the range there is far more easily ~2km.

Where is the receive module mounted?

Potentially could have someone at the roadside in a prearranged location with a bluetooth device that triggers it when he passes it. Is that why he looks up the road prior to attack?
Not that I believe this really.
 
Jul 8, 2015
209
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

What if Froome's PSM performance happened today on PdB? How fast would he have gone? Faster than Contador/Rasmussen '07? That's not going to sell the skeptics that you are clean, at all.

And now this independent testing thing...sounds like a repeat of Ed Coyle. The PR machine churns on.

Clean cycling is not here, probably not even close to being here. The sport is STILL pretty much impossible to believe in.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
2
0
Re: Re:

TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

Meh I'm sure they could have gone a minute faster if it was truly neccesary.
 
Re: Re:

TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

What if Froome's PSM performance happened today on PdB? How fast would he have gone? Faster than Contador/Rasmussen '07? That's not going to sell the skeptics that you are clean, at all.

And now this independent testing thing...sounds like a repeat of Ed Coyle. The PR machine churns on.

Clean cycling is not here, probably not even close to being here. The sport is STILL pretty much impossible to believe in.

What you're ultimately saying is that there can be no improvement in performance in the last 15-20 years approaching Armstrongs, Ulrichs, Patanis performances, otherwise it's a doped performance. What would you say is the clean performance or performance figures that are the clean limit ? It's weird field where they can be no improvement in decades aint it ? If that's the case pretty much all endurance sport is by definition doped.
 
Jul 8, 2015
209
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

What if Froome's PSM performance happened today on PdB? How fast would he have gone? Faster than Contador/Rasmussen '07? That's not going to sell the skeptics that you are clean, at all.

And now this independent testing thing...sounds like a repeat of Ed Coyle. The PR machine churns on.

Clean cycling is not here, probably not even close to being here. The sport is STILL pretty much impossible to believe in.

What you're ultimately saying is that there can be no improvement in performance in the last 15-20 years approaching Armstrongs, Ulrichs, Patanis performances, otherwise it's a doped performance. What would you say is the clean performance or performance figures that are the clean limit ? It's weird field where they can be no improvement in decades aint it ? If that's the case pretty much all endurance sport is by definition doped.

I suggest reading some of Ross Tucker at sportsscientists.com. He offers better insight than I ever could about the limits of clean performance.

http://sportsscientists.com/thread/tour-de-france-analysis/

This links to all of the articles that Tucker has posted on performance analysis and most of what I'm about to say comes from what I've read from him.

EPO abuse in the '90s increased performance by anywhere between 5 and 15%. Look at Riis VAM on Hautacam, or some of Pantani's W/Kg (stuff like 7.0 w/kg for 40 min). Absolutely incredible. If cycling is clean, those numbers must be much, much smaller. Armstrong/Ullrich performances in the 2000s was a little slower, but not by much. And over time, even they were proven to be frauds.

Look at the average w/kg by Tour winners on major climbs. Usually, it is somewhere around 6 w/kg (Armstrong years). In recent years, Nibs was 5.99, Froome 5.95. Cadel in 2011 was 5.78. We aren't getting slower, in fact, the opposite is true. Cycling slowed down a little bit in '08, '11, '12. Yet here we are, back to the speeds of the (doped) early/mid 2000s.

How has technology changed in the last decade to allow riders to climb this fast without doping?

Yes, at some point, it is reasonable to expect clean performances to surpass doped ones. But we aren't there yet, because the sport hasn't been clean yet. This article explains that better.
http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/clean-performances-to-surpass-doped-performances/

The fact is, cycling is still a dirty sport. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can't.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

What if Froome's PSM performance happened today on PdB? How fast would he have gone? Faster than Contador/Rasmussen '07? That's not going to sell the skeptics that you are clean, at all.

And now this independent testing thing...sounds like a repeat of Ed Coyle. The PR machine churns on.

Clean cycling is not here, probably not even close to being here. The sport is STILL pretty much impossible to believe in.

What you're ultimately saying is that there can be no improvement in performance in the last 15-20 years approaching Armstrongs, Ulrichs, Patanis performances, otherwise it's a doped performance. What would you say is the clean performance or performance figures that are the clean limit ? It's weird field where they can be no improvement in decades aint it ? If that's the case pretty much all endurance sport is by definition doped.

Deeply ingrained doping culture. No legitimate undoped revolutionary training methods since EPO.
 
Sep 5, 2011
99
0
0
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

Meh I'm sure they could have gone a minute faster if it was truly neccesary.

Yeah with all the attacks and subsequent slowdowns, definitely would have been faster if ridden at a steady pace. And with the size of that group, it's fair to assume that at least one of the riders could have ridden the climb significantly faster. Evidence points to a relative slowdown in doping efficacy in the late 00s due to new tests, then full gas again as everyone learned how to more effectively and efficiently get around the new tests. Don't know how anybody could seriously think that there is a reasonable possibility of any of the top 5 GC riders being clean here.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
TI-Raleigh said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Just matched Armstrong's 2002 climb time.

This is why Froome -and the peloton as a whole- is hard to believe in. He has a day where he doesn't look great, still matches Lance 2002 (where he won the stage, dominated the Tour). Lance was a doper beating dopers. And Froome climbs as well as Lance, but claims to be clean. Something isn't right here.

What if Froome's PSM performance happened today on PdB? How fast would he have gone? Faster than Contador/Rasmussen '07? That's not going to sell the skeptics that you are clean, at all.

And now this independent testing thing...sounds like a repeat of Ed Coyle. The PR machine churns on.

Clean cycling is not here, probably not even close to being here. The sport is STILL pretty much impossible to believe in.
[Snipped]
If that's the case pretty much all endurance sport is by definition doped.
You win a prize.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Froome and Brailsford boh denying Ketones.....

Paul Chamberlain ‏@PCNutrition 13 Dec 2012
British cycling training for ketone use as fuel. Part training part diet strategy but details are secret! #isenc12

more lies........