Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[SlickMongoose]

They're not going to tell all their competitors what they're doing, are they?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

They're not going to tell all their competitors what they're doing, are they?

No. But why tell lies when it already out there that they are using it. If you are going to lie about what supplements you are taking what is to stop you lying about other things.

But their competitors also know what they are doing. Yates, Jullich De Jongh to Tinkoff, etc

 

[ice&fire]

Re: Re:

They're not going to tell all their competitors what they're doing, are they?

No. But why tell lies when it already out there that they are using it. If you are going to lie about what supplements you are taking what is to stop you lying about other things.

But their competitors also know what they are doing. Yates, Jullich De Jongh to Tinkoff, etc

I'm starting to think that coaches may not know what doctors do

 

[Catwhoorg]

You don't lie on a Monday, then not lie on a Tuesday....

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

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.

Brilliant response ...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

No. No one is saying that. Period. So stop with this.

One would expect slight performance gains over a period of a decade (not 15-20 years as you suggest), but either way, the gains would be slight and tied to enhanced training and better gear. The gear stopped getting lighter some time ago so that's not going to change in any measurable way. Training has probably gotten better. What do you think that accounts for? Let's go crazy and call it 2%. I'm sure that's high or on the highest end of what could be expected.

So if these guys are clean, you would expect a max (for the sake of argument) 2% increase over what a CLEAN rider could have done a decade or so ago, whatever that is. YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO MATCH OR BEAT THE MOST DOPED RIDERS EVER with the fastest times ever recorded. EPO and Blood doping have been estimated at up to 15% increase in time to exhaustion, and lord knows how much higher power outputs were but clearly it was well over 2%.

Contador hasn't improved. He's slowed down a little bit in some cases and is almost or as good in others. So we can clearly infer he's still doping. Yet these guys are beating him.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

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.

No. No one is saying that. Period. So stop with this.

One would expect slight performance gains over a period of a decade (not 15-20 years as you suggest), but either way, the gains would be slight and tied to enhanced training and better gear. The gear stopped getting lighter some time ago so that's not going to change in any measurable way. Training has probably gotten better. What do you think that accounts for? Let's go crazy and call it 2%. I'm sure that's high or on the highest end of what could be expected.

So if these guys are clean, you would expect a max (for the sake of argument) 2% increase over what a CLEAN rider could have done a decade or so ago, whatever that is. YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO MATCH OR BEAT THE MOST DOPED RIDERS EVER with the fastest times ever recorded. EPO and Blood doping have been estimated at up to 15% increase in time to exhaustion, and lord knows how much higher power outputs were but clearly it was well over 2%.

Contador hasn't improved. He's slowed down a little bit in some cases and is almost or as good in others. So we can clearly infer he's still doping. Yet these guys are beating him.

They haven't beaten the most doped riders ever though have they, if you look at all the various charts of performance that are churned out in recent years, even Ross Tucker says that.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

No. No one is saying that. Period. So stop with this.

One would expect slight performance gains over a period of a decade (not 15-20 years as you suggest), but either way, the gains would be slight and tied to enhanced training and better gear. The gear stopped getting lighter some time ago so that's not going to change in any measurable way. Training has probably gotten better. What do you think that accounts for? Let's go crazy and call it 2%. I'm sure that's high or on the highest end of what could be expected.

So if these guys are clean, you would expect a max (for the sake of argument) 2% increase over what a CLEAN rider could have done a decade or so ago, whatever that is. YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO MATCH OR BEAT THE MOST DOPED RIDERS EVER with the fastest times ever recorded. EPO and Blood doping have been estimated at up to 15% increase in time to exhaustion, and lord knows how much higher power outputs were but clearly it was well over 2%.

Contador hasn't improved. He's slowed down a little bit in some cases and is almost or as good in others. So we can clearly infer he's still doping. Yet these guys are beating him.

They haven't beaten the most doped riders ever though have they, if you look at all the various charts of performance that are churned out in recent years, even Ross Tucker says that.

They have in some cases, and I said "match or beat". Even being close would be ridiculous.

I'm surprised that's all you have to say. The entire point is that no one would expect normal evolution of clean sport to get us where we are today. Maybe in 50 or a 100 years, but really how much further can we expect to go? Training improvements can't be linear. At some point you're exhausting all possible legal avenues and the gains are reduced.

You're picking a nit and avoiding discussing the salient points in the discussion.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

They haven't beaten the most doped riders ever though have they, if you look at all the various charts of performance that are churned out in recent years, even Ross Tucker says that.

If I'm not mistaken, most of the most ridiculous performances of all time came before the 50% hematocrit limit was set. That's probably a factor.

Sky are riding at times that are definitely comparable to the times set after the Festina affair, which is when doping went from being the dangerous free-for-all it was to a more calculated science that required a bit of care and know-how.

 

[Singer01]

Re:

Uh. Queens Counsel is a lawyer, what the hell are you smoking?

And stop telling me I have anything jumbled, you look idiotic doing that, I quote the paragraph you posted verbatim.

go and look it up bright spark, you can do it on wikipedia in 10 seconds.

 

[mrhender]

Everyone...

Quit the personal stuff or vacation(s) will be awarded...

Cheers
mrhender

 

[Lyon]

Stop this nonsense about matching previous performances or not - riders like Froome, Wiggins etc. shouldn't be close enough to warrant a look at the numbers and calculations in the first place. The fact that there are people constantly watching the numbers after every single stage tells enough of a story to draw the one conclusion that makes sense.

 

[The Hitch]

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

And that sort of PR spinning is why the casual viewers will always believe, and why the people who care enough to dig deeper will always hate the lies and hypocrisy.

Sadly, I feel the former are a vast majority.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

Exactly. Gold...

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

And that sort of PR spinning is why the casual viewers will always believe, and why the people who care enough to dig deeper will always hate the lies and hypocrisy.

Sadly, I feel the former are a vast majority.

Majority

All of Europe is laughing.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Majority

All of Europe is laughing.

I'm seeing the casual cycling fans blindly swallowing every lie like it's water in Sahara.

Posting here and reading what people like Ross Tucker are writing, I'm getting the opinions of people who not only follow cycling with a passion, but also try to understand the physics behind it all. That's pretty far removed from people who put The Tour on the box after coming home from work because it's the best thing on at the moment- Actually, even that is arguable with the way Sky are ruining the race. It's a toss-up between Days of Our Lives and cycling at the moment. Both are equally believable as far as the acting goes too.

Anywho, my point is, the stuff I'm reading is mostly from people who have woken up and caught a whiff of the coffee, but that's because those people are far more likely to speak out and definitely more likely to speak out in places where there voices will be heard by me. The guy coming home from work will just watch the stage finish and get on with his day. Maybe he'll even catch a pro-Sky fluff piece while reading The Times in the evening. He won't, however, sign up to Twitter and/or The Clinic and make it his mission to bring down Sky because he doesn't care enough to put in the hours required to understand the ins and outs of cycling.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

Anyone with a beard like Dan's must be telling the truth... imo

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

I watch "The Fast and the Furious" instead. Yes, that's how much I didn't watch to watch that documentary...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

You don't lie on a Monday, then not lie on a Tuesday....

I tweeted that a couple of days ago

Great minds n all that jazz.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Majority

All of Europe is laughing.

I'm seeing the casual cycling fans blindly swallowing every lie like it's water in Sahara.

Posting here and reading what people like Ross Tucker are writing, I'm getting the opinions of people who not only follow cycling with a passion, but also try to understand the physics behind it all. That's pretty far removed from people who put The Tour on the box after coming home from work because it's the best thing on at the moment- Actually, even that is arguable with the way Sky are ruining the race. It's a toss-up between Days of Our Lives and cycling at the moment. Both are equally believable as far as the acting goes too.

Anywho, my point is, the stuff I'm reading is mostly from people who have woken up and caught a whiff of the coffee, but that's because those people are far more likely to speak out and definitely more likely to speak out in places where there voices will be heard by me. The guy coming home from work will just watch the stage finish and get on with his day. Maybe he'll even catch a pro-Sky fluff piece while reading The Times in the evening. He won't, however, sign up to Twitter and/or The Clinic and make it his mission to bring down Sky because he doesn't care enough to put in the hours required to understand the ins and outs of cycling.

There are a lot of people out there who believe in Sky very passionately. I won't deny that. They post a lot and are very vocal.

Similarly there are a lot of people like us out there who don't believe in Sky very passionately. And we post a lot ( I mean, i do here, others do on twitter) and are very vocal.

Depending on who you read and when you could get the impression that one group is bigger or the other.

I think the second group is bigger for a number of reasons. 1 When in Denmark a newspaper did a poll of their readers 80% of respondents said they think Froome dopes. 2 When Walsh was on Irish radio in 2013 the radio station said that almost all the responese - texts and emails, they got during the broadcast were negative towards Walsh with very few positives.

However, the more important point to make is that most people are not like us or the believers. They are apathetic.

And what is the default apathetics position? That cycling is doped. Maybe in GB with the added allure of nationalism some of them can be convinced, emotionally that Britain's best are clean.

But you think that all those millions who decided cycling was doped after Puerto and after Contador and after Lance suddenly think its clean cos some bozo like Kirby or your norwegian commentator says so? Please.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

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.

No. No one is saying that. Period. So stop with this.

One would expect slight performance gains over a period of a decade (not 15-20 years as you suggest), but either way, the gains would be slight and tied to enhanced training and better gear. The gear stopped getting lighter some time ago so that's not going to change in any measurable way. Training has probably gotten better. What do you think that accounts for? Let's go crazy and call it 2%. I'm sure that's high or on the highest end of what could be expected.

So if these guys are clean, you would expect a max (for the sake of argument) 2% increase over what a CLEAN rider could have done a decade or so ago, whatever that is. YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO MATCH OR BEAT THE MOST DOPED RIDERS EVER with the fastest times ever recorded. EPO and Blood doping have been estimated at up to 15% increase in time to exhaustion, and lord knows how much higher power outputs were but clearly it was well over 2%.

slight performance gains over the past 15 years?
That's easy - LA n co were on 9 speed groupsets, but now they go to 11...
Everything works better at 11, it's all you need to know.
DB came up with this back when he had hair...
doper on 9 will always be bettered by cleans on 11

 

[Dalakhani]

Today's Guardian has an article about Froome and his accusers. The article isn't worth reading, but the comments are hilarious.

There are some that argue, "why would he dope, he's too much to lose, and nothing to gain." Seriously. At least, when they were saying this about Wiggins, there was some logic behind it:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/16/tour-de-france-2015-chris-froome-fends-attacks-joaquim-rodriguez-wins-stage-12

 

[Cycle Chic]

anyone got a link to see Froomes press conference from yesterday ?

 

[rainman]

Re:

Theres some Froome "documentary" on ITV. Walsh and Dave Brailsford are trotted out as the two main experts rattling off all the known talking points. Froome always had potential. Everyone saw it. No surprise that he finally showed it at Vuelta etc.

They also found some random African cyclist - Dan Craven, to reinforce Froome's African identity.

Thats a jaw dropper, surely if my dodgy memory serves, his contract was due to be terminated at the end of 2011 season? But then he went alien at Vuelta and it was handshakes all round.