Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[ice&fire]

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.

In 1996 there were 140kms and a harder climb between Soudet and the finish line. Not comparable. Both performances not normal, though.

 

[Red Lobster]

Re:

[quote="

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

Or is it willful cherry-picking of data, with the knowledge that most of the readership does not have the "basic background" to identify the sleight-of-hand.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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

Because Sam's misread did not change the scumbag nature of the comment.

"All Froome doubters are bitter ex dopers", may not be exactly the same comment as "All Froome doubters are bitter fans of ex dopers", its a tiny difference and the implication is almost identical.

Both are some pretty disgraceful abuses of journalistic power, outright lies created by someone who thinks its ok to make up the stories they write rather than comment on what is actually happening.

Sam posted the actual comment in his post so anyone could see what the journo had actually said anyway, its not like he was trying to deceive anyone, nor like they couldn't see what was actually said.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

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.

And it also makes me laugh to see people actually continuing to argue that its the other riders who weren't good.
So in 2012 all the riders who were supposed to beat Wiggins in the mountains - Menchov, Nibali, Sanchez, Evans, had bad Tours.
And in 2013 Contador had a bad Tour.
And in 2015 Contador and Nibali are having bad Tours.

And Contador also had a bad Tour in 2010, and Nibali a bad Vuelta in 2011. Evans had many gts like this too. Valverde was weak last year.

It seems there actually is a challenge to peaking for a race. As there should be. Gts are brutal 3 week efforts and getting that righ takes effort.

Yet these people think its perfectly logical that 3 years in a row Froome is able to peak perfectly for the TDF with no concequences, Wiggins in 2012 too, Thomas this year.

In 2012 there wasn't a single stage where Nibali was able to gain so much as a second on Wiggins. Not in prologues, not in sprints, not on hills, not on MTFs, not on none MTF mountain stages.

This year, if I've read it right, Contador hasn't even been able to finish ahead of Froome on a single stage apart from the one Froome crashed, where Froome was ahead of him anyway. Even when Froome takes it easy and finishes st with Contador, he still is able to finish ahead of him each time.

How comes this is so easy for Froome, and every other top rider in the world finds it so difficult?

 

[bigcog]

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?

If I am fan of anything it's exciting performances/entertainment. I don't know whether any of them are clean or not. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, if they are doping it will come out eventually, either from other people or retrospective testing, although some do seem to get away with it (Big Mig). What I don't like is targeting particular riders who are no more suspect than others, who seem to get a free ride.

 

[frenchfry]

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 ...

Nothing personal, but this is the most ignorant post I have seen in a long time - and there is a lot of competition.

 

[Dr.Guess]

Re: 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.

In 1996 there were 140kms and a harder climb between Soudet and the finish line. Not comparable. Both performances not normal, though.

Of course. Still, pretty good going and also I thought of it more as something the commentaries from Eurosport here in Sweden when comparing some times to "20 years ago". Not to say we shouldn't use fair comparisons. Damn, how gullible are even Roberto vacchi and Anders adamsson (Swedish commentaries) I don't know what's worse in the doping matter, being gullible or ignorant.

a side question. When speaking of armstrongs 7w/kg, where did he record that? Contador did that just on verbier and pantani on alpe?

 

[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 ...

Nothing personal, but this is the most ignorant post I have seen in a long time - and there is a lot of competition.

Charming I was taking the p*ss btw.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Fat dawg

 

[Saint Unix]

Genuine question: Is that Chris Froome? I can't tell for sure.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Genuine question: Is that Chris Froome? I can't tell for sure.

Yes it is.

I myself find it that funny the more weight he's lost the more power he's gained.

 

[Saint Unix]

Maybe that's part of the process of becoming a different species?

 

[carton]

Re:

Fat dawg

Whoa. Though TBH that's the best argument that Froome is not blood doping (or, conversely doping with AICAR) that I'v seen so far. I mean he makes Betancur look borderline bulimic.

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.

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

I thought that amattipyorailly had him at less than 6.1 W/Kg. It was the first mountain stage, first climb, after a rest day. Why was it so impressive?

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

That's the new editor-in-chief. I'm guessing he was hired for his marketing & managing skills more than any journalistic heft. Still, outside the "competitive in stage races" bit it wasn't a bad first effort. He seems to write in the Bill Simmons' fan/outsider voice more than as a serious journalist/reporter.

I cooled down quickly on the La Pierre Saint Martin show. I mean Thomas's 2015 performance seems sketchier than Froome in my book (as compared to recent history). I thought afterwards, echoing what Andrew Hood and Daniel Friebe said previously and what Clinic favorite David Walsh said then, that if we saw something similar in Plateau de Beille, I'd be worried, but I'd expect at least Quintana to keep up, since the climb suited him far better. Well it wasn't just Quintana, but everyone I thought would be there was except for Uran and Peraud. The numbers were really high there too (everyone seemed to do better power-wise than Quintana in LPSM). Considering the headwind, rain and the two previous days, perhaps more suspiciously high (particularly for Geraint Thomas). So looking back the question really why the heck did everyone but Quintana, Gesink and Froome "suck" (relative to their usual) so bad in La Pierre Saint Martin? I know it seems ridiculous, but don't the numbers back up a scenario were all of the horses were caught on an off-day?

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Maybe that's part of the process of becoming a different species?

Australopithecus Anemensis
Homo Qutensensis
Homo Floreiensis
Homo Sapiens
Homo Sapien Sapein
Team Sky

 

[zlev11]

what year is that picture from? he looked almost as skinny as he is now during the 2008 TdF.

 

[harryh]

Re:

what year is that picture from?

2009

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Christopher+Froome/UCI+Road+World+Championships+Day+Five/KtubiVuCTb2

 

[pastronef]

Re:

what year is that picture from? he looked almost as skinny as he is now during the 2008 TdF.

yes, in July 2008 he was very thin and lean
while in september 2009 he bulked

I think he had to make to Tour team in 2008 so he was very thin
In september 2009 he already signed with Sky, maybe relaxing at the end of the season

 

[gooner]

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.

There was nothing in that article about all accusers as bitter Armstrong fans.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

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.

There was nothing in that article about all accusers as bitter Armstrong fans.

There's also nothing in there to differentiate between who is and is not a bitter Armstrong fan looking to expose Sky because they're bitter about how Armstrong was exposed. It's a shotgun accusation, that in realty DOES expose ALL of the people who question Team Sky to the same accusation. It's weak, agenda driven journalism, and all of your apologist crap will not change that.

 

[Merckx index]

I hate to keep beating this dead horse, but I think everyone commenting on this passage has missed the point:

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.

Williams actually conflates the accusers with the dopers. He does "moan" about the accusers initially—“some of the accusers, still nursing resentments…”, but when he goes on to say “They would see this as a retrospective justification of their own behaviour, opening a possible door back into polite society.”, he clearly is talking about the dopers. Have any accusers [of Froome] been prevented from entering polite society? Of course not. Some of the dopers have. But the phrase "their own" in this own context can only be used to refer to the fans.

So Williams made a mess of this paragraph, and it's entirely understandable that some would interpret it as saying the accusers are bitter ex-dopers. What he should have written was:

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 the behaviour of the old guard of dopers, opening a possible door back into polite society for them.

But even that better-expressed point is wrong, or at least highly misleading. Most Froome accusers--at least in the Clinic--fit just the opposite of this description. They are not bitter but celebratory that LA and others were exposed, and want to see the same happen to Froome. Not so that LA can be rehabilitated, but because having been fooled once by LA, they are twice shy.

 

[The Hitch]

And of course the opposite is also largely true. Many of the sky defenders were lance defenders. That includes in the press - Wiggins himself, David Millar, ligget and Sherwen of course, Kirby, Brian smith, some of whom were extremely unpleasant in their defense of Armstrong, all allowed to stay on and didn't miss a beat in shifting all the lance narratives to sky.I don't read cycling print press thankfully but I imagine there's some there too.

On the internet too. There was a lance fan blog out there called blazing saddles that last I checked has now become a sky fan blog. In the clinic most lance defenders abandoned their accounts in 2012 but some - Polish and in particular mambo95 had already moved onto sky during the short overlap. Parker has expressed regret on a number of occasions that usada succeeded. The newspaper comment sections like telegraph where lance was heroworshiped also became sky sections.

Did any of the anti Armstrong crowd from 2011 on here end up beliebing sky are clean? Even just one. They desperately tried to claim race radio at one point but even he has said on a number of occasions froome dopes and refered to Thomas as hincapie 2 days ago.

It's quite clear which side represents continuety from Armstrong.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

There's also nothing in there to differentiate between who is and is not a bitter Armstrong fan looking to expose Sky because they're bitter about how Armstrong was exposed. It's a shotgun accusation, that in realty DOES expose ALL of the people who question Team Sky to the same accusation. It's weak, agenda driven journalism, and all of your apologist crap will not change that.

It's clearly distinguished as he referenced them as some accusers and done so without a sweeping general statement towards to all doubters. I will differentiate with some categories.

Some are against all dopers irrespective of who are they are and maintain consistency along those lines. Their tummies have been tickled in the past and don't wish to see that happen again. They put their points across constructively and in a reasoned manner.

Some are fans of dopers and are decrying it with Sky while at the same time they would have no problem celebrating into sunset if their own heroes were performing to the same level. I wouldn't just put that with the old guard of dopers when it's seen with the dopers in the current climate, particularly in reference to Contador fans.

Some have a deep rooted disturbing hatred(jibes at Britain, island dwellers, etc.) and publicly declare their wish for Froome's rivals to be doped to the gills in the hope of stopping his dominance. Yourself and a few others fall in this category.

So no not all accusers all bitter Armstrong fans. The first group above who are doubting Froome are the only ones I listen to on here and elsewhere for that matter. The latter two groups I wouldn't take any notice from one end of the day to the other. What's even more insulting is with their light and shining armour portraying this all for some greater good of theirs. And yes, they come across as bitter.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

There's also nothing in there to differentiate between who is and is not a bitter Armstrong fan looking to expose Sky because they're bitter about how Armstrong was exposed. It's a shotgun accusation, that in realty DOES expose ALL of the people who question Team Sky to the same accusation. It's weak, agenda driven journalism, and all of your apologist crap will not change that.

It's clearly distinguished as he referenced them as some accusers and done so without a sweeping general statement towards to all doubters. I will differentiate with some categories.

Some are against all dopers irrespective of who are they are and maintain consistency along those lines. Their tummies have been tickled in the past and don't wish to see that happen again. They put their points across constructively and in a reasoned manner.

Some are fans of dopers and are decrying it with Sky while at the same time they would have no problem celebrating into sunset if their own heroes were performing to the same level. I wouldn't just put that with the old guard of dopers when it's seen with the dopers in the current climate, particularly in reference to Contador fans.

Some have a deep rooted disturbing hatred(jibes at Britain, island dwellers, etc.) and publicly declare their wish for Froome's rivals to be doped to the gills in the hope of stopping his dominance. Yourself and a few others fall in this category.

So no not all accusers all bitter Armstrong fans. The first group above who are doubting Froome are the only ones I listen to on here and elsewhere for that matter. The latter two groups I wouldn't take any notice from one end of the day to the other. What's even more insulting is with their light and shining armour portraying this all for some greater good of theirs. And yes, they come across as bitter.

See the highlighted, and then see the actual topic, and not your apologist crap.

 

[Jimsnchz]

Re:

Fat dawg

So that's where he stared pre-power meter? Who knew? Then again if you were climbing zig-zag style its best to look ahead.

 

[blackcat]

i am not levelling an accusation against Sky only. I level the accusation against the entire peloton. The ENTIRE peloton. And I find it incredulous that a comprehensive 20% gain doping program in some markers, I cannot believe that the head of the peloton, are actually clean.

the deduction is not my accusation, it is the peloton's own indictment. Their own behaviour voluntarily indicts and convicts the head of the peloton.

and I really dont have any value judgement on the doping, i think it is a little absurd about the dual narratives that exist in dissonance, and the riders having to exhort the platitudes bromides and motherhood statements on anti-doping. I preferred the era where we just avoided all questions. no, i seriously did prefer that. But the riders on behalf of the professional corporation, buy in to the anti-doping rhetoric. And JV and Sky brought it to new levels. They are their own worst enemy