Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So they doped him knowing he wont test positive then. Quelle surpise.

I haven't followed this thread. What are the theories as to why Froome is so confident that they won't find anything in his samples for 10 yrs? he seemed very confident.

Note: If you're Lance Froome 2.0 fanboy, don't bother with the "Because he's clean" replies.

Now this is what makes me laugh. We can reply to you providing we don't actually suggest that, whilst he might be doping, he might actually be clean. Why? Because none of us have got the bloody facts! Christ it's like banging your head against a brick wall....

Yes I laugh. I laugh that people have not looked at the sport to see what has changed in the sport in relation to doping. I find nothing has changed, the same people who ran doping teams are still there. The doping enablers hired by those teams are there, the well known doping doctors are still there. There is no outrage and ostracisation of anyone caught doping. The riders are all blaming Armstrong and forget most of them rode with Armstrong in 2010. Most of them forget all the other teams were doping at the same time.

So taking all the above into account, we have Sky who made a huge fuss and hoohaa about being different from everyone else and yet when it came to it, they did the same as everyone else, hired the former dopers, hired the doping doctor, hired the dodgy soigneur and when questioned on it gave BS answers. The still have Servais Knaven working for them after claiming to have rid the team of anyone connected to doping, they still have an ex Armstrong Soigneur working for them after telling everyone they rid the team of anyone connected to doping.
So Sky have lied and if they are going to tell lies in the sport, you can be pretty damn sure that a team like that who are beating all the dopers is not doing it clean. Unless they were completely transparent and they have been anything but transparent. Sky = obfuscation = doping.

ps, if you stopped banging your head against the wall and took a dispassionate look at it all, you would easily come to the conclusion that something about sky is not right. The so called 'marginal gains' they claimed to have introduced, most teams were doing it without the claims sky made, now 5 years later all the teams are doing the same and guess that negates sky's claim of 'marginal gains'. If everyone is doing it, no one is gaining. See this is the kind of thing sky fans dont want to see.

 

[willbick]

Re: Re:

Saying things like

"If people want the entertainment value of riders attacking each other, stopping, attacking each other again and again, then go back to 'old cycling', which will give you the capability to do that," he said.

"If you want clean sport and clean cycling, then it's going to be different. You can't have it both ways. There's an element of reality about what were doing."

Does not help to make Sky likeable

the thing is, it is wrong.

go back to the 70s and 80s before o2 vector doping, and seeing riders attacking each other.

That was because there was more discrepancy between riders in those days. Nowadays all the riders basically train and prepare in similar ways and the margins are very fine. They are all riding close to their limits which are very similar.

 

[samerics]

Re: Re:

So they doped him knowing he wont test positive then. Quelle surpise.

I haven't followed this thread. What are the theories as to why Froome is so confident that they won't find anything in his samples for 10 yrs? he seemed very confident.

Note: If you're Lance Froome 2.0 fanboy, don't bother with the "Because he's clean" replies.

Now this is what makes me laugh. We can reply to you providing we don't actually suggest that, whilst he might be doping, he might actually be clean. Why? Because none of us have got the bloody facts! Christ it's like banging your head against a brick wall....

Yes I laugh. I laugh that people have not looked at the sport to see what has changed in the sport in relation to doping. I find nothing has changed, the same people who ran doping teams are still there. The doping enablers hired by those teams are there, the well known doping doctors are still there. There is no outrage and ostracisation of anyone caught doping. The riders are all blaming Armstrong and forget most of them rode with Armstrong in 2010. Most of them forget all the other teams were doping at the same time.

So taking all the above into account, we have Sky who made a huge fuss and hoohaa about being different from everyone else and yet when it came to it, they did the same as everyone else, hired the former dopers, hired the doping doctor, hired the dodgy soigneur and when questioned on it gave BS answers. The still have Servais Knaven working for them after claiming to have rid the team of anyone connected to doping, they still have an ex Armstrong Soigneur working for them after telling everyone they rid the team of anyone connected to doping.
So Sky have lied and if they are going to tell lies in the sport, you can be pretty damn sure that a team like that who are beating all the dopers is not doing it clean. Unless they were completely transparent and they have been anything but transparent. Sky = obfuscation = doping.

ps, if you stopped banging your head against the wall and took a dispassionate look at it all, you would easily come to the conclusion that something about sky is not right. The so called 'marginal gains' they claimed to have introduced, most teams were doing it without the claims sky made, now 5 years later all the teams are doing the same and guess that negates sky's claim of 'marginal gains'. If everyone is doing it, no one is gaining. See this is the kind of thing sky fans dont want to see.

I am dispassionate, I'm not a fan boy of anyone, I am naturally cynical, if you knew me you'd get that straight away. However, I hate the bullsh*t that people spout when they state as fact that which is pure supposition. You have no inside track on Sky or anyone else, for every "expert" that says they must be doping, there is another expert that interprets the figures differently. It reminds me of Jehovah's witnesses, where they find only the "facts" that fit their agenda, not set their agenda around the majority, even if it disproves them.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

That was because there was more discrepancy between riders in those days. Nowadays all the riders basically train and prepare in similar ways and the margins are very fine. They are all riding close to their limits which are very similar.

but we will still have timetrialers, grimpeurs, spinters, puncteurs, domestiques, all-rounders... see your speciality and training argument can also be used against you. The Queen syage and other HC final ascent stage, should still show a fracturing of the group.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

@semarics
You have ignored everything in Bennotti's reply. There is no assumption. Only what sky has actually said, and then later fact-checked by others to be false There is no supposition, only staff listed on rosters of Sky, other teams, and the UCI. There is no speculation, only the awareness to actually look at what other teams do, instead of taking Sky's "we were the first" as fact, showing what they pruport as a marginal gain to actually be the status quo.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So they doped him knowing he wont test positive then. Quelle surpise.

I haven't followed this thread. What are the theories as to why Froome is so confident that they won't find anything in his samples for 10 yrs? he seemed very confident.

Note: If you're Lance Froome 2.0 fanboy, don't bother with the "Because he's clean" replies.

Now this is what makes me laugh. We can reply to you providing we don't actually suggest that, whilst he might be doping, he might actually be clean. Why? Because none of us have got the bloody facts! Christ it's like banging your head against a brick wall....

Yes I laugh. I laugh that people have not looked at the sport to see what has changed in the sport in relation to doping. I find nothing has changed, the same people who ran doping teams are still there. The doping enablers hired by those teams are there, the well known doping doctors are still there. There is no outrage and ostracisation of anyone caught doping. The riders are all blaming Armstrong and forget most of them rode with Armstrong in 2010. Most of them forget all the other teams were doping at the same time.

So taking all the above into account, we have Sky who made a huge fuss and hoohaa about being different from everyone else and yet when it came to it, they did the same as everyone else, hired the former dopers, hired the doping doctor, hired the dodgy soigneur and when questioned on it gave BS answers. The still have Servais Knaven working for them after claiming to have rid the team of anyone connected to doping, they still have an ex Armstrong Soigneur working for them after telling everyone they rid the team of anyone connected to doping.
So Sky have lied and if they are going to tell lies in the sport, you can be pretty damn sure that a team like that who are beating all the dopers is not doing it clean. Unless they were completely transparent and they have been anything but transparent. Sky = obfuscation = doping.

ps, if you stopped banging your head against the wall and took a dispassionate look at it all, you would easily come to the conclusion that something about sky is not right. The so called 'marginal gains' they claimed to have introduced, most teams were doing it without the claims sky made, now 5 years later all the teams are doing the same and guess that negates sky's claim of 'marginal gains'. If everyone is doing it, no one is gaining. See this is the kind of thing sky fans dont want to see.

I am dispassionate, I'm not a fan boy of anyone, I am naturally cynical, if you knew me you'd get that straight away. However, I hate the bullsh*t that people spout when they state as fact that which is pure supposition. You have no inside track on Sky or anyone else, for every "expert" that says they must be doping, there is another expert that interprets the figures differently. It reminds me of Jehovah's witnesses, where they find only the "facts" that fit their agenda, not set their agenda around the majority, even if it disproves them.

o i dont have an inside track. But many things are certain. Doping is still part of the culture of the sport. For that to change something monumental would need to happen. So doping is still par for the course in racing and training. Well ask yourself this logical question, 'How can a clean rider beat a doped one over 3 weeks?'

Bringing religion is as an allegory is not assisting your argument. Because Sky are the ones asking us to believe in their so called 'miralces', riders from Grupetto to top step of the TdF. Angel wings were involved in that!!!

Sky talked about being a transparent and having a zero tolerance to doping from day one. We have yet to see that in over 5 years. When called on it they give lame or unbelievable excuses. They have been caught lying plenty of times over the 5 years. Now a team that lies, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt even after lying to you? that makes you a fan. I know a team that has been caught lying is doping. No other way to win the TdF or any other GT over 3 weeks against teams that are doing their utmost to win with the latest doping methods.

I am sorry you believe in miracles. No you do, otherwise you wouldn't be in here defending Sky/Froome.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So they doped him knowing he wont test positive then. Quelle surpise.

I haven't followed this thread. What are the theories as to why Froome is so confident that they won't find anything in his samples for 10 yrs? he seemed very confident.

Why have they not retested Wiggin's and Froome's(and others) samples from 2012 for AICAR and GW1516?

Why have they not retested the 2007 and 2008 TdFs for CERA after finding Ricco and Suanier Duvall using it?

Why are samples form this and past tours not being sent to the Cologne Laboratory they have the best and most advance capabilites?

That i think tells us how the UCI view doping and dopers!

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

Bringing religion is as an allegory is not assisting your argument. Because Sky are the ones asking us to believe in their so called 'miralces', riders from Grupetto to top step of the TdF. Angel wings were involved in that!!!

Sky talked about being a transparent and having a zero tolerance to doping from day one. We have yet to see that in over 5 years. When called on it they give lame or unbelievable excuses. They have been caught lying plenty of times over the 5 years. Now a team that lies, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt even after lying to you? that makes you a fan. I know a team that has been caught lying is doping. No other way to win the TdF or any other GT over 3 weeks against teams that are doing their utmost to win with the latest doping methods.

I am sorry you believe in miracles. No you do, otherwise you wouldn't be in here defending Sky/Froome.

youre not alluding to my muscular christianity are you B69?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Christianity
#Poeslaw

 

[S2Sturges]

Re: Re:

Long theorised as a fuel for sport, getting them absorbed sufficiently without caused GI distress has been the main issue.

It is hypothesised (but not confirmed) that a group has cracked this issue and sells British Cycling and Sky drinks which cost a lot, but provide this fuel in a form that can be absorbed.

This could be a contributing factor to the extreme weight loss seen by certain Sky riders.

its not the reason Froome turned up at 66kg for Vuelta in 2011, and Wiggins at Garmin light as a grimpeur.

its some new peptide like lipotropin, with GW1516 and Aicar

I believe GW1516 has been used by AFL players to lean them out and add endurance, wasn't that and some other peptides being suggested... Sky have obviously spent the biggest money on being the best dopers and the most undetectable ... AiCar, peptides, VO2 vectoring, plus whatever other little tune ups they have, and are so far ahead of the testers, I doubt they'll ever get pinged...

 

[danielovichdk2]

Anyone believe Froome has raced clean at this TdF ?

Don't re-discuss his entire career, his Tdf '13 or his arms sticking out. Just, whether you believe what you have been a witness to, is a clean performance or not.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Bringing religion is as an allegory is not assisting your argument. Because Sky are the ones asking us to believe in their so called 'miralces', riders from Grupetto to top step of the TdF. Angel wings were involved in that!!!

Sky talked about being a transparent and having a zero tolerance to doping from day one. We have yet to see that in over 5 years. When called on it they give lame or unbelievable excuses. They have been caught lying plenty of times over the 5 years. Now a team that lies, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt even after lying to you? that makes you a fan. I know a team that has been caught lying is doping. No other way to win the TdF or any other GT over 3 weeks against teams that are doing their utmost to win with the latest doping methods.

I am sorry you believe in miracles. No you do, otherwise you wouldn't be in here defending Sky/Froome.

youre not alluding to my muscular christianity are you B69?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_Christianity
#Poeslaw

Brilliant. you the cat.

 

[S2Sturges]

Re:

Saying things like

"If people want the entertainment value of riders attacking each other, stopping, attacking each other again and again, then go back to 'old cycling', which will give you the capability to do that," he said.

"If you want clean sport and clean cycling, then it's going to be different. You can't have it both ways. There's an element of reality about what were doing."

Does not help to make Sky likeable

The reality of boring people to death with riding herd on the peleton and squashing everyone after Froome/Wigins got in the yellow jersey... Sorry, it ain't what real road racing is about, Brailsford's vision is obviously skewed in his favour...

 

[gazr99]

Anyone believe Froome has raced clean at this TdF ?

Don't re-discuss his entire career, his Tdf '13 or his arms sticking out. Just, whether you believe what you have been a witness to, is a clean performance or not.

Yes I do. The stage he won the tour wasn't his win up La Pierre Saint Martin on stage 10, it was stage 2 when he gained a minute and half on Quintana.

 

[ebandit]

hope springs eternal

Anyone believe Froome has raced clean at this TdF ?

as always i hope that da dawg...............and all the leading contenders were riding

clean...........this year i thought that v better opposition with no long TT da dawg

had no chance.........so who knows?

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

Anyone believe Froome has raced clean at this TdF ?

Don't re-discuss his entire career, his Tdf '13 or his arms sticking out. Just, whether you believe what you have been a witness to, is a clean performance or not.

Yes I do. The stage he won the tour wasn't his win up La Pierre Saint Martin on stage 10, it was stage 2 when he gained a minute and half on Quintana.

You are aware the Alejandro Valverde was banned for 2 years for blood doping? Well his performances see his return have been better than since his ban! So how did Froome beat Valverde, never mind all the other known dopers in the race!

 

[wendybnt]

Anyone believe Froome has raced clean at this TdF ?

Don't re-discuss his entire career, his Tdf '13 or his arms sticking out. Just, whether you believe what you have been a witness to, is a clean performance or not.

Yes I do. The stage he won the tour wasn't his win up La Pierre Saint Martin on stage 10, it was stage 2 when he gained a minute and half on Quintana.

No I don't.

For the simple reason that I don't think Froome's post 2011 riding is legitimate. Having said that, a fair dose of what I've read posted here is crap. Not all, but some of it is exaggerated beyond belief. The guy had a tiny margin over the nearest rivals for a couple of stages, and for the rest of it he clung on. It wouldn't have taken much for him to have lost yesterday, a puncture or a stomach bug would have done it, or one more attack in the right place. Then we'd all be celebrating Nairo 'I do most of my training in Colombia" Quintana.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

On the other hand, the best time trialler among the top climbers won a Tour with just 14km of time trialling. Imagine what happens when you add in two pancake flat 50km+ ITTs like many Tours in the 2000s had ...

 

[jalep]

Re:

On the other hand, the best time trialler among the top climbers won a Tour with just 14km of time trialling. Imagine what happens when you add in two pancake flat 50km+ ITTs like many Tours in the 2000s had ...

You have a valid point. When the route was unveiled for 2015 TdF it appeared positively anti-Froome. Kudos to Froome and Sky for conquering that. But pardon me if I don't appreciate the media campaign and moves to prop up Sky while vilifying Astana plus I highly suspect them gaining an underhanded advantage by further moves to weaken competition for the 2nd year in a row, (remembering Krueziger being prevented from riding TdF last year). Also excuse me but the hypocrisy of the clean image and claim is also too much to digest. None of this passes a truth test

Congrats to Sky and Froome! But you gotta know: the scheme and plan replicating itself year after year, building an empire of domination will not be received well.

 

[blackcat]

For the simple reason that I don't think Froome's post 2011 riding is legitimate. Having said that, a fair dose of what I've read posted here is crap. Not all, but some of it is exaggerated beyond belief. The guy had a tiny margin over the nearest rivals for a couple of stages, and for the rest of it he clung on. It wouldn't have taken much for him to have lost yesterday, a puncture or a stomach bug would have done it, or one more attack in the right place. Then we'd all be celebrating Nairo 'I do most of my training in Columbia" Quintana.

i reckon Froome is legit. surely doped. but legit. His stage on the cobbles managed to entrench "hard man" status. Like Nibali last year

 

[Benotti69]

As for Froome's late blossoming, TeamSky point to his early tests at the UCI headquarters in Aigle, which showed he was always a 'freakish talent'....

Yet this test data is not released! Why? well we all know why? It would point to Froome not being the 'freakishly talented' rider Sky claim, that is why they were trying to get rid off him in 2011......

 

[ebandit]

zillionth

As for Froome's late blossoming, TeamSky point to his early tests at the UCI headquarters in Aigle, which showed he was always a 'freakish talent'....

Yet this test data is not released! Why? well we all know why? It would point to Froome not being the 'freakishly talented' rider Sky claim, that is why they were trying to get rid off him in 2011......

again prior to the vuelta in 2011 team sky had made offer to da dawg to renew

his contract............i don't think they were trying to get rid of him at all

Mark L

 

[BYOP88]

For the people that don't believe in Sky, the cynics and the skeptics, I’m sorry for you, I’m sorry you can't dream big and I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.

 

[pmcg76]

Re: Re:

Not saying EPO doesnt give a big advantage but then riddle me this

Lucho Herrera 41.50 1987
Charly Mottet 41.42 1991
Greg LeMond 41.42 1991
Andrew Hampsten 41:45 1991
Laurent Fignon 41.56 1987

v

Lance Armstrong 41.35 1999
Alberto Contador 41.33 2011
Alejandro Valverde 41:45 2008
Frank Schleck 41:45 2008
Denis Menchov 41:47 2008
Bernhard Kohl 41:47 2008

The answer to your riddle is that you're cherry-picking times to suit your argument. No pre-1991 times in the top 50. The few top 100 times that are before 1994 are from the people most likely to have started the EPO early. Bugno, Chiappucci and Indurain all there with their 1991 times.

Apart from that, every single top 100 time, except for Quintana in 2013 and 2015 and Purito of 2013, is set between 1994 and 2008, which we know are the EPO years. Comparing mediocre EPO performances to good non-EPO performances is pointless. Look at the best dopers versus the best non-dopers. The difference up ADH is probably around 5 minutes, which is an Earth-shattering time gap.

The riddle was more to illustrate the futility of comparing times form year to year as you noted by cherry picking. A number of people have been putting forward the notion that rider x rode this time and was heavily doped and rider y rode an equal time so ergo has to be doped. Realistically you can only compare the best times of riders against each other.

For example Red_Flanders in either this or the Quintana thread, noted that Quintana would have beaten all the dopers bar Armstrong in the 2001 ascent of Alpe d'Huez, therefore the answer is obvious. Maybe, but then the best time of Lucho Herrera would have seen him finish in the first 5 also and best time of LeMond would have been easily in the top 10 on that day. What does that say???

Different races, different circumstances etc. It is not a like for like time-trial.

As of yesterday only 14 riders have times faster than Quintana on Alpe d'Huez which is most definitely susipicous, they are Pantani/Ullrich/Armstrong/Indurain/Zulle/Riis/Virenque/Landis/Kloeden/Madoaus/Sastre/Mayo/Azevedo/Leipheimer. Mostly all proven dopers and Quintana is with them but how many of them would people say are more natural climbers than Quintana? Is it the EPO pushing them past the likes of Quintana when realistically many of them might be 2-3 minutes behind him naturally. I don't know. The sad reality of cycling as nobody really knows the starting point of natural talent.

I asked what posters think a believable time would be, but nobody wants to hazard a guess.

I know this is the Froome thread but this is just a more generalised observation.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: zillionth

As for Froome's late blossoming, TeamSky point to his early tests at the UCI headquarters in Aigle, which showed he was always a 'freakish talent'....

Yet this test data is not released! Why? well we all know why? It would point to Froome not being the 'freakishly talented' rider Sky claim, that is why they were trying to get rid off him in 2011......

again prior to the vuelta in 2011 team sky had made offer to da dawg to renew

his contract............i don't think they were trying to get rid of him at all

Mark L

Bruyneel came to Sky looking for Stannard. Sky offered Froome. Froome got offered bottom wages (half his previous year) by sky. That is really looking to keep your recognised (sky claim)future GT winner..........

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not saying EPO doesnt give a big advantage but then riddle me this

Lucho Herrera 41.50 1987
Charly Mottet 41.42 1991
Greg LeMond 41.42 1991
Andrew Hampsten 41:45 1991
Laurent Fignon 41.56 1987

v

Lance Armstrong 41.35 1999
Alberto Contador 41.33 2011
Alejandro Valverde 41:45 2008
Frank Schleck 41:45 2008
Denis Menchov 41:47 2008
Bernhard Kohl 41:47 2008

The answer to your riddle is that you're cherry-picking times to suit your argument. No pre-1991 times in the top 50. The few top 100 times that are before 1994 are from the people most likely to have started the EPO early. Bugno, Chiappucci and Indurain all there with their 1991 times.

Apart from that, every single top 100 time, except for Quintana in 2013 and 2015 and Purito of 2013, is set between 1994 and 2008, which we know are the EPO years. Comparing mediocre EPO performances to good non-EPO performances is pointless. Look at the best dopers versus the best non-dopers. The difference up ADH is probably around 5 minutes, which is an Earth-shattering time gap.

The riddle was more to illustrate the futility of comparing times form year to year as you noted by cherry picking. A number of people have been putting forward the notion that rider x rode this time and was heavily doped and rider y rode an equal time so ergo has to be doped. Realistically you can only compare the best times of riders against each other.

For example Red_Flanders in either this or the Quintana thread, noted that Quintana would have beaten all the dopers bar Armstrong in the 2001 ascent of Alpe d'Huez, therefore the answer is obvious. Maybe, but then the best time of Lucho Herrera would have seen him finish in the first 5 also and best time of LeMond would have been easily in the top 10 on that day. What does that say???

Different races, different circumstances etc. It is not a like for like time-trial.

As of yesterday only 14 riders have times faster than Quintana on Alpe d'Huez which is most definitely susipicous, they are Pantani/Ullrich/Armstrong/Indurain/Zulle/Riis/Virenque/Landis/Kloeden/Madoaus/Sastre/Mayo/Azevedo/Leipheimer. Mostly all proven dopers and Quintana is with them but how many of them would people say are more natural climbers than Quintana? Is it the EPO pushing them past the likes of Quintana when realistically many of them might be 2-3 minutes behind him naturally. I don't know. The sad reality of cycling as nobody really knows the starting point of natural talent.

I asked what posters think a believable time would be, but nobody wants to hazard a guess.

I know this is the Froome thread but this is just a more generalised observation.

It was Vaughters back in 2008 who claimed that because speeds were down, everything was cleaner. Now it appears speeds are not down, in fact riders are climbing faster than EPO times.

Now some people want posters to pick 'believable times'......we need believable testing, believable governance, believable transparency, believable rejection of doping from all and sundry in the sport before we can start the game of 'believable times'.