Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

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

I swear, most of the commenters are a special kind of stupid.

Yes. I think people need to get a bit of perspective. On a mountain stage Rodriguez (at 36 years of age) comes in 7 minutes before the GC contendors for this second stage win of the tour to acclaim and respect. Froome snatches a minute over rivals on a mountain stage, and oh, he must be doping. Conspiracy theory claptrap.

such a shame that the crashes and resultant casualties has reduced the field. would have made for a more competitive race especially if Martin was still in the field

I thought they gave Valverde and his junior Quintana just enough rope to hang themselves. Contracenbutamol couldn't get away from them, and Tejay was hanging on by the skin of his teeth.

Can we please have a filter on here that just clears out all the 'He must be doping' comments so that I can come on here and read insightful comments from knowledgeable cycling fans and not just the same old ***, rehashed every day by the same people.

"Chris Froome is an exceptional athlete not just because he's naturally quick. He is also totally dedicated to the sport to a degree that practically all the others are not. Read his autobiography and see how he trains in full gas bursts, holding himself in the red then easing off before going again. That's what we saw on Ventoux two years ago and again this year. He said we'd "see who's done their homework" when the race entered the Pyrenees. Well, he and Sky certainly have. Froome a doper? Bollocks. He's brilliant."

So much insight I threw all my cycling books into the bin.

Unless his doping started at some point prior to the 2011 Vuelta - which his accusers no doubt assume - in which case, he would have had a lot to gain, and little to lose.

Brilliant day again for Sky, very reminiscent of Postal at their best. How Porte suddenly goes from a crap Giro, to responding to multiple attacks by the world's best climbers, without even getting out of the saddle is amazing.

thank god! Some of them have a brain

 

[Cycle Chic]

Hayles said: "This is such bizarre news to us, it really is incredible. There are a lot of people who think they can read between the lines with this but I think they're barking up the wrong tree."

why would you say that ? Hayles cocked up there - he's saying that looking at froomes data isnt the place to be looking.

 

[Tommy79]

Hayles said: "This is such bizarre news to us, it really is incredible. There are a lot of people who think they can read between the lines with this but I think they're barking up the wrong tree."

why would you say that ? Hayles cocked up there - he's saying that looking at froomes data isnt the place to be looking.

He's saying there is nothing to find.

But you knew that.

 

[Cycle Chic]

freudian slip more like it

 

[SeriousSam]

Re:

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

I'm a prolific guardian commentator myself (under a different nickname, of course) but not on cycling. I just cannot cope with comments like

Chris Froome is an exceptional athlete not just because he's naturally quick. He is also totally dedicated to the sport to a degree that practically all the others are not. Read his autobiography and see how he trains in full gas bursts, holding himself in the red then easing off before going again. That's what we saw on Ventoux two years ago and again this year. He said we'd "see who's done their homework" when the race entered the Pyrenees. Well, he and Sky certainly have. Froome a doper? Bollocks. He's brilliant

The "working harder than everyone else" narrative is so *** stupid, I have nothing but contempt for people who believe it.

 

[Dalakhani]

Re: Re:

The "working harder than everyone else" narrative is so **** stupid, I have nothing but contempt for people who believe it.

I can't even believe people bought it when Postal were using it... but to buy it now, so soon after it was proven to be BS the last time it was used... it's just extraordinary...

 

[SeriousSam]

Another absurd article by the Guardian, by Richard Williams.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/17/tour-de-france-lance-armstrong-suspicion

Some of the accusers, still nursing resentments over the way the old guard of dopers – the generation of Armstrong and Basso, and their managers and facilitators – were finally exposed, are keen to uncover proof that Sky’s zero‑tolerance policy is no more than a sham, and that nothing has really changed. They would see this as a retrospective justification of their own behaviour, opening a possible door back into polite society.

So the accusers of clean Sky are all the Armstrong esque ex dopers who are just mad and resentful they got exposed and thus can't accept clean hard working Sky?

Team Sky, being so data-oriented, could easily comply with that requirement, although it would not sit easily with their culture of finding performance gains in areas overlooked by their rivals. And the result would not, let’s face it, be very compelling to anyone beyond the community of obsessives who measure human value in watts per kilogram.

rofl

Unless there is something more than circumstantial evidence to the contrary, it might be best to accept the phenomenal nature of Froome’s performances.

lol

Embarassing drivel.

 

[Tommy79]

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.

I liked this article, seems the most rational standpoint.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/road/commentary-on-froome-and-not-knowing_378393

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

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

I swear, most of the commenters are a special kind of stupid.

Yes. I think people need to get a bit of perspective. On a mountain stage Rodriguez (at 36 years of age) comes in 7 minutes before the GC contendors for this second stage win of the tour to acclaim and respect. Froome snatches a minute over rivals on a mountain stage, and oh, he must be doping. Conspiracy theory claptrap.

such a shame that the crashes and resultant casualties has reduced the field. would have made for a more competitive race especially if Martin was still in the field

I thought they gave Valverde and his junior Quintana just enough rope to hang themselves. Contracenbutamol couldn't get away from them, and Tejay was hanging on by the skin of his teeth.

Can we please have a filter on here that just clears out all the 'He must be doping' comments so that I can come on here and read insightful comments from knowledgeable cycling fans and not just the same old ***, rehashed every day by the same people.

"Chris Froome is an exceptional athlete not just because he's naturally quick. He is also totally dedicated to the sport to a degree that practically all the others are not. Read his autobiography and see how he trains in full gas bursts, holding himself in the red then easing off before going again. That's what we saw on Ventoux two years ago and again this year. He said we'd "see who's done their homework" when the race entered the Pyrenees. Well, he and Sky certainly have. Froome a doper? Bollocks. He's brilliant."

So much insight I threw all my cycling books into the bin.

Unless his doping started at some point prior to the 2011 Vuelta - which his accusers no doubt assume - in which case, he would have had a lot to gain, and little to lose.

Brilliant day again for Sky, very reminiscent of Postal at their best. How Porte suddenly goes from a crap Giro, to responding to multiple attacks by the world's best climbers, without even getting out of the saddle is amazing.

thank god! Some of them have a brain

Is it really that hard to ignore things like that? People like that always existed. Even more so during the Armstrong days. and there's hundreds more of them on other websites too (maybe its the same people). Still I don't see why you want to give them a free voice in the clinic. Parker and del are perfectly capable of logging into their own usernames and I'm sure vickers still remembers how to create new accounts.

 

[sniper]

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

doubt we're gonna see any of that.

 

[Tommy79]

Re:

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

doubt we're gonna see any of that.

Are there any possible results from the above that would make you say "Oh, he's clean, I'll shut up then"

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

doubt we're gonna see any of that.

Are there any possible results from the above that would make you say "Oh, he's clean, I'll shut up then"

Hehe don't be silly, it's already been decided on here. The weird thing is this forum would probably become dead without froome, what would they do then ...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Hehe don't be silly, it's already been decided on here. The weird thing is this forum would probably become dead without froome, what would they do then ...

lolnope. Try again.

You joined on July 10, 2012. You know that's an outright lie. The way Thomas is going we'll have plenty to talk about for years to come.

 

[LaFlorecita]

@Hitch
British fans drinking the Kool Aid, OK, fair enough. But some of those people don't even seem to know the basics of cycling. Shaking my head.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Hehe don't be silly, it's already been decided on here. The weird thing is this forum would probably become dead without froome, what would they do then ...

lolnope. Try again.

You joined on July 10, 2012. You know that's an outright lie. The way Thomas is going we'll have plenty to talk about for years to come.

Not saying Bigcog is a Sky fan. But didn't the Lance fans say that about Lance?

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

doubt we're gonna see any of that.

And how many other top contenders have released this?

 

[Dr.Guess]

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/froome-sets-new-speed-record-for-soudet.html?m=1

Has this been discussed? Froome with a record. In fact, beating 1996 speed.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

And how many other top contenders have released this?

Why is that relevant?

 

[TheSpud]

Re:

Another absurd article by the Guardian, by Richard Williams.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/17/tour-de-france-lance-armstrong-suspicion

Some of the accusers, still nursing resentments over the way the old guard of dopers – the generation of Armstrong and Basso, and their managers and facilitators – were finally exposed, are keen to uncover proof that Sky’s zero‑tolerance policy is no more than a sham, and that nothing has really changed. They would see this as a retrospective justification of their own behaviour, opening a possible door back into polite society.

So the accusers of clean Sky are all the Armstrong esque ex dopers who are just mad and resentful they got exposed and thus can't accept clean hard?

Thats not what he is saying. He is moaning about the accusers - not the old guard of dopers. He's saying they are the resentful ones.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

· Several sets of independent lab tests carried out through a season by an independent tester or testing body with no links to Team Sky, British Cycling or a national federation.
· Full disclosure of all medication including TUEs taken and prescribed since 2010 – the date from which Froome joined Team Sky.
· Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.
· Conduct a full asthma examination to prove that the use of current medication is required, along with any relevant backdated prescriptions.
· Provide all Biological Passport data to an independent body.

doubt we're gonna see any of that.

Are there any possible results from the above that would make you say "Oh, he's clean, I'll shut up then"

Hehe don't be silly, it's already been decided on here. The weird thing is this forum would probably become dead without froome, what would they do then ...

Yes. It has been decided by anyone with a brain.

Don't know what the second sentence has to do with anything. Bit of a non sequitur.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Another absurd article by the Guardian, by Richard Williams.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/17/tour-de-france-lance-armstrong-suspicion

Some of the accusers, still nursing resentments over the way the old guard of dopers – the generation of Armstrong and Basso, and their managers and facilitators – were finally exposed, are keen to uncover proof that Sky’s zero‑tolerance policy is no more than a sham, and that nothing has really changed. They would see this as a retrospective justification of their own behaviour, opening a possible door back into polite society.

So the accusers of clean Sky are all the Armstrong esque ex dopers who are just mad and resentful they got exposed and thus can't accept clean hard?

Thats not what he is saying. He is moaning about the accusers - not the old guard of dopers. He's saying they are the resentful ones.

So? Yeah Sam misread it slightly. So what. Its still the same stupid idea, that all accusers are bitter Armstrong fans.

 

[hrotha]

So Sam misread it and TheSpud corrected it. What's the big deal? Should errors stand just because they happen to go against Sky?

 

[SlickMongoose]

Re:

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/froome-sets-new-speed-record-for-soudet.html?m=1

Has this been discussed? Froome with a record. In fact, beating 1996 speed.

I believe this year is the first year it's been used as a finish?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/froome-sets-new-speed-record-for-soudet.html?m=1

Has this been discussed? Froome with a record. In fact, beating 1996 speed.

Ssshhhh. Why do you hate winners?

Of course the guy is doping.

 

[Merckx index]

I liked this article, seems the most rational standpoint.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/07/news/road/commentary-on-froome-and-not-knowing_378393

Which performances can we believe and which ones should we dismiss? We don’t know. Was Froome pumping enhanced blood on Tuesday, or was it just that, as David Brailsford pointed out, his rivals had a bad day? We don’t know. Certainly Froome’s ride wasn’t something out of the ordinary for him.

This just isn’t true. The ride was out of the ordinary for him, the power he put out—from VAM and by comparing to Gesink’s SRM—establishes that very clearly. Higher output than his 2013 climbs, which themselves were suspicious. Some of the others might have been off, but Quintana rode very well, and he got dropped by a minute.

He’s been competitive in stage races at every level since turning pro.

Give me a break.

don’t think his win in La Pierre-Saint-Martin was proof that he’s doping, nor even strong evidence of the fact. At 59 seconds over Porte in second place and 1:04 over Nairo Quintana in third, it wasn’t even all that impressive by Tour standards, at least relative to the field. In 1986, Greg LeMond won stage 13 in the Pyrennes by over a minute. Five days later, he and Bernard Hinault rolled across the finish atop l’Alpe d’Huez together more than five minutes ahead of the third-placed rider.

Apparently ignorant that races are contested very differently today from then. But if he really wants to make that comparison, he might want to add that by power numbers, Lemond and Hinault would have been something like eight minutes behind Froome.

I really don’t understand how people who aren’t even acquainted with basic background material are allowed to have a platform like this.

from benson's front page article, some things Froome c/should be, but isn't, transparent about:

Full power to weight data released to an independent body for analysis – again from 2010 onwards. The data released in 2013 did not complete the picture.

That’s the easiest one to comply with, and the most important at this point.

http://www.climbing-records.com/2015/07/froome-sets-new-speed-record-for-soudet.html?m=1

Has this been discussed? Froome with a record. In fact, beating 1996 speed.

Power numbers are more revealing. Froome’s speed was measured over a greater length, which means, I think, that some shallower gradient was included. So the comparisons not quite comparable.

But his power numbers are all one really needs. They are equivalent to an ADH climb almost in the top 10 all-time.