Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

That’s a very interesting site……..I’m all for detailed empirical analysis that comes to a considered opinion based on a sound rationale.

As I said, I have no particular axe to grind (as a Welshman, I’m more inclined to “support” Geraint Thomas than anyone else)………….but I do like my cycling and find this place quite intriguing. It was the boldness of the statement “shown to be false” that struck me since, if it were widely acknowledged that Sky had issued deliberately falsified or tailored data, then the media outside the UK would be jerking themselves into a frenzied ejaculation of outrage and indignation………..and I haven’t seen anything (or heard much muffled grunting) ?

Anyway, to be honest, I can’t get too excited by it all………………..cheating is wrong in any sport, but I appreciate that, where there’s money (and future financial security) involved, to varying degrees professional atheletes will go as far as they can to win….unless you’re Christophe Bassons…..and take the risk of being uncovered. Whatever happens, these guys still have to ride 150Km odd, then finish with 10Km up a 12% incline…………….I couldn’t even manage the warmup these days !

There’s low life in high places (just look at the current UK Government) but, at least since Voldemort’s departure, cycling doesn’t seem to have any really offensive villians…………..

Froome told BBC radio 4 he had released "ALL" his medical info......a gold star if you can find me 'any'....

Released to who though ?

I certainly wouldn't release all my medical information to all and sundry...........(and it's perfectly normal to get a rash there.........honest.......... )

 

[adamfo]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

Jeeze talk about a non sequitur....

Exactly Adamfo...especially when we are talking about a rider who was this good early 2011

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/04/DBgraphhires1.jpg

I was pointing out the informal fallacy in Froomster's post. I don't see the connection with the linked chart ?

 

[Irondan]

*

*****If you're going to try and alter the quotes, do it right or don't do it at all.*****

*

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

Jeeze talk about a non sequitur....

Exactly Adamfo...especially when we are talking about a rider who was this good early 2011

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/04/DBgraphhires1.jpg

I was pointing out the informal fallacy in Froomster's post. I don't see the connection with the linked chart ?

I know....neither does it logically follow that the guy with the blood stained clothes and gun in his hand beside the dead body did the murder...

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I was pointing out the informal fallacy in Froomster's post. I don't see the connection with the linked chart ?

no, not an informal fallacy. I would place it in the realm of the phallic, the blackcat doping pornography rule, "I know it when I see it".

when a baseline doping program will give you 10%, and a comprehensive Ferrari program in the leagues of 20%, and the marginal gains aint a rounding error on this (thnx DQ), and Olympic level sports are decided by a fraction of a single percent,

and Froome's lacklustre packfodder amateur Gran Fondos back in South Africa

looks quacks down and feathered like a billed bird,

its a doping duck. its a duck that dopes. the duck dopes. and the dope ducks

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

Jeeze talk about a non sequitur....

Exactly Adamfo...especially when we are talking about a rider who was this good early 2011

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/04/DBgraphhires1.jpg

I was pointing out the informal fallacy in Froomster's post. I don't see the connection with the linked chart ?

I know....neither does it logically follow that the guy with the blood stained clothes and gun in his hand beside the dead body did the murder...

the posted graph was like seeing the suspect's criminal record with previous form and a grudge against the deceased...but hey...I know, he could be innocent...

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Per his twitter feed, the physiological testing is occuring today. Short video clip posted.

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/633278404738031616

Good lord, he looks even worse on rollers than on the road, if such were possible.

Why does anyone care about this? If I understand correctly, it's Sky doing the testing on a guy we know is performing at a certain level. What on earth is this supposed to prove? They already have released data which is known to be false on its face.

More grist for the believers I imagine...

No axe to grind, but I'm interested whether this data you speak of has been publicly shown to be false...........or whether it's "known" to be false by this forum ?

Not sure how this forum isn't public, but I'd point you to this: Science of Sport : Great power, great responsibility. Less power, greater speeds

It is thus absolutely inconceivable that a ride of that level, where Froome was supreme on the day, was only at 5.78 W/kg.

They go on to point out that the power numbers only work if the weight numbers cited were incorrect, as they obviously were to anyone paying attention. Froome claimed to be at 64kg last year and 66 at the Dauphine with more to lose this year. So they obviously lied about the weight data and quite likely fudged the adjustment for the elliptical cranks. But clearly something was way off and not explained.

Can I prove they lied? No. Is it obvious to anyone looking at this rationally that they lied? Yes. Was it an honest error? An honest error that fits perfectly into their narrative and covers a wildly suspicious performance when the data is corrected? If you buy that I've got a bridge to sell...

That’s a very interesting site……..I’m all for detailed empirical analysis that comes to a considered opinion based on a sound rationale.

As I said, I have no particular axe to grind (as a Welshman, I’m more inclined to “support” Geraint Thomas than anyone else)………….but I do like my cycling and find this place quite intriguing. It was the boldness of the statement “shown to be false” that struck me since, if it were widely acknowledged that Sky had issued deliberately falsified or tailored data, then the media outside the UK would be jerking themselves into a frenzied ejaculation of outrage and indignation………..and I haven’t seen anything (or heard much muffled grunting) ?

Anyway, to be honest, I can’t get too excited by it all………………..cheating is wrong in any sport, but I appreciate that, where there’s money (and future financial security) involved, to varying degrees professional atheletes will go as far as they can to win….unless you’re Christophe Bassons…..and take the risk of being uncovered. Whatever happens, these guys still have to ride 150Km odd, then finish with 10Km up a 12% incline…………….I couldn’t even manage the warmup these days !

There’s low life in high places (just look at the current UK Government) but, at least since Voldemort’s departure, cycling doesn’t seem to have any really offensive villians…………..

"Shown to be false" doesn't require that it's "widely acknowledged". The former can be (and is) true without the latter being true. Most people don't want to know and won't look that closely.

Offensive is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly Armstrong was a cut above, but I find it offensive that someone so ill inclined to be a great rider can get away with what he's been doing. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities as much as anything.

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

Fair enough.......offensive is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder (for example, I saw a bloke the other day whose facial hair was so intricately groomed that I found it offensive enough to wish a meteor strike upon him).

If aesthetics are a priority, I suggest you watch womens cycling..............certainly appeals to my sensibilities

 

[Andynonomous]

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

empire crew are entertaining. infinite jocularity.

someone gotta provoke them with the Hog is on sojourn

 

[Texeng]

Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

 

[adamfo]

Re: Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

Good thing forums aren't a court of law and logic is allowed to prevail

 

[adamfo]

Re: Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

Good thing forums aren't a court of law and logic is allowed to prevail

It's called faith, believing something without evidence. There are ruder words to describe it that the forum probably wont let me post !
There is no Judge and Jury of course, but if people post allegations without marshalling evidence you are left with
a medieval forum. Throw the woman into the river. If she drowns she is not a witch. If she doesn't she must be a witch so burn her at the stake...

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

Good thing forums aren't a court of law and logic is allowed to prevail

It's called faith, believing something without evidence. There are ruder words to describe it that the forum probably wont let me post !
There is no Judge and Jury of course, but if people post allegations without marshalling evidence you are left with
a medieval forum. Throw the woman into the river. If she drowns she is not a witch. If she doesn't she must be a witch so burn her at the stake...

There's actually quite a bit of evidence in the various threads, but someone who has been a member for 2 and a 1/2 years would know that.

No smoking gun proof, certainly. But a lot of circumstantial evidence, covered ad nauseum.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

Every time someone has success in a drug riddled sport (like tennis or football, or athletics, or cycling), their fanboys argue that their guy is different.

We have heard all of the same "arguments" for Armstrong and Contador being clean (before they were officially caught), as we are now hearing for Froome being clean. In tennis we get the same BS arguments for Djokovic and Murray. You just can't have success at this level, beating lesser-performing doped riders, unless the talent is an extreme-outlier, or he is doping himself. It is far more likely that he is doped, than he is an extreme outlier. Froome just beat a known doper (and a pretty good rider as well) in Contador. The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%, yet the fanboys still argue the point.

Why do people argue with deluded fanboys ?

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

Good thing forums aren't a court of law and logic is allowed to prevail

It's called faith, believing something without evidence. There are ruder words to describe it that the forum probably wont let me post !
There is no Judge and Jury of course, but if people post allegations without marshalling evidence you are left with
a medieval forum. Throw the woman into the river. If she drowns she is not a witch. If she doesn't she must be a witch so burn her at the stake...

Faith is for fools.
I prefer trust. And I sure as **** would not trust anything out of Sky.

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

Because its fun in a perverse way - just the same as the clean fanboys argue with the fanboys of everyone is doping regardless of proof. If there was solid proof, then the argument would disappear wouldn't it?

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.
The claim that "The likelihood Froome was clean at his two TDF victories is less than 1%" would be torn to shreds in a civil court as an appeal to probability, an inductive argument.

Good thing forums aren't a court of law and logic is allowed to prevail

It's called faith, believing something without evidence. There are ruder words to describe it that the forum probably wont let me post !
There is no Judge and Jury of course, but if people post allegations without marshalling evidence you are left with
a medieval forum. Throw the woman into the river. If she drowns she is not a witch. If she doesn't she must be a witch so burn her at the stake...

There's actually quite a bit of evidence in the various threads, but someone who has been a member for 2 and a 1/2 years would know that.

No smoking gun proof, certainly. But a lot of circumstantial evidence, covered ad nauseum.

IMHO there is no proof, regardless of how long you have been a member of this forum. If there was, you would be making a fortune from selling the story to the press. Of course there is suspicion, circumstantial evidence and bias on both sides. Maybe some of us just believe in the innocent till proven guilty argument that we were raised on and can live with being disappointed if we are wrong.

To say that someone who has only been a member of this forum for a short time doesn't know what is going on assumes a lot and proves nothing. For all we know, that new member with 3 posts could be a subject matter expert. Where is the tolerance for a different view?

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

There's actually quite a bit of evidence in the various threads, but someone who has been a member for 2 and a 1/2 years would know that.

No smoking gun proof, certainly. But a lot of circumstantial evidence, covered ad nauseum.

IMHO there is no proof, regardless of how long you have been a member of this forum. If there was, you would be making a fortune from selling the story to the press. Of course there is suspicion, circumstantial evidence and bias on both sides. Maybe some of us just believe in the innocent till proven guilty argument that we were raised on and can live with being disappointed if we are wrong.

To say that someone who has only been a member of this forum for a short time doesn't know what is going on assumes a lot and proves nothing. For all we know, that new member with 3 posts could be a subject matter expert. Where is the tolerance for a different view?

Where did I say that a new member can't have knowledge on the topic at hand? Show me.

All I said was that someone who has been a member for 2.5 years, would have some idea of the circumstantial evidence that has been covered and covered here time and time again.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

The burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation not the clean fanbois. In a civil court in England this is set at the lower level of 'balance of probabilities'. In a court of law the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is not something relevant to the interweb.

this is not a critical thinking unit or philosophy101 class at college. what it is, is a web forum.

what Armstrong did, he attempted, and had a great amount of success, in managing perception with paid public relations operatives, lawyers, and college student interns at his charity foundation Livestrong.

We have seen it all before.

Cycling has seen it for half a century, however the era of blood vector drugs and techniques provided rocket fuel on the pyre.

There is the tension, and philosophical paradox of a question of doping in sport. If one can manage doping, and beat all possible regulatory regime, can you put alternative evidence into this town square discussion. And what is evidence, this is not the courtroom, this does not have to meet a courts evidence, but it should meet some burden of a sentient being. So we have that tension of liberty and encroachment.

When all that has gone on before in cycling, is it such an error to indict Froome when no one seeks to deprive him of physical liberty nor his opportunity to ride for Sky?

If we can see results from Froome when he was a junior and nascent espoir, where he was mere pack-fodder in mass start amateur Gran Fondo's in South Africa, cannot we believe his talent was fictional before he developed a relationship with his Mistress Hypodermic.

or do you seek to switch off our brains and wish for us not to ask any awkward and inescapable questions?

Froome can ride and he is not the only doping professional. like others on here, my opinion is nigh all are. so, froome can ride, let him ride.

I think most of the empire crew here, get a little shirty, because we make fun of them, call them empire crew, and most importantly, single out vroome and by this virtue imply he is doping on his lonesome. WRONG, we dont insinuate this, vroome is certainly doping in a peloton that also dopes, and this is why they do not complain about being cheated. Because they do not believe they are being cheated. doping is part of the game, doping is a barrier to entry, the guys who are being cheated are those that never decided to take the plunge and enter the professional ranks of the sport because they knew what was required of them if they took this professional option open to them.

 

[blackcat]

Texeng the media are gatekeepers, and the largest media company in the world sponsor the team vroom rides for.

I bet Lance and the handlers at Capital Sports and Entertainment now kick themselves for not thinking about this.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Martin Vickers used to carry on about courts and law and burden of proof BS. Absolute tosser that guy.

 

[Froomster]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

....and by logical extension of your argument, anybody who wins any tour must be doping because he is beating other people who are/have doped - because the 'numbers' you talk about are irrelevant rubbish and certainly don't amount to evidence or even facts. Your nonsense deserves no further comment/answer.

You can call it rubbish however much you want. The numbers are out there. As to "evidence", if standards of evidence required that you always catch the perp in the act, our jails would be very empty indeed. Ask any defence lawyer and they'll tell you that over 90% of their clients say that they're totally innocent.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

The reality is that, even after they've been caught, a lot of them deny it:

American rider Tom Danielson has been suspended by his Cannondale-Garmin team after testing positive for synthetic testosterone but he denies taking a banned substance.

The team issued a statement on Monday saying Danielson had returned an "adverse analytical A sample using carbon isotope testing" and had been suspended immediately.

Danielson, who is awaiting the results of his B sample and could face a lifetime ban if that concurs wit the A sample, said on Twitter he had not used performance-enhancing drugs.

"While I was eating dinner with my team the night before the Tour of Utah I received a call from USADA notifying me that an out of competition test I gave July 9 has tested positive for, from what I understand, synthetic testosterone," Danielson said.

"I have not taken this or any other banned substance."

Danielson, 37, has already served a six-month ban, in 2012-13, after admitting to blood doping while riding with The Discovery Channel team.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/03/csports-us-cycling-doping-danielson-idCAKCN0Q80KF20150803

 

[observer]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

....and by logical extension of your argument, anybody who wins any tour must be doping because he is beating other people who are/have doped - because the 'numbers' you talk about are irrelevant rubbish and certainly don't amount to evidence or even facts. Your nonsense deserves no further comment/answer.

You can call it rubbish however much you want. The numbers are out there. As to "evidence", if standards of evidence required that you always catch the perp in the act, our jails would be very empty indeed. Ask any defence lawyer and they'll tell you that over 90% of their clients say that they're totally innocent.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

The reality is that, even after they've been caught, a lot of them deny it:

American rider Tom Danielson has been suspended by his Cannondale-Garmin team after testing positive for synthetic testosterone but he denies taking a banned substance.

The team issued a statement on Monday saying Danielson had returned an "adverse analytical A sample using carbon isotope testing" and had been suspended immediately.

Danielson, who is awaiting the results of his B sample and could face a lifetime ban if that concurs wit the A sample, said on Twitter he had not used performance-enhancing drugs.

"While I was eating dinner with my team the night before the Tour of Utah I received a call from USADA notifying me that an out of competition test I gave July 9 has tested positive for, from what I understand, synthetic testosterone," Danielson said.

"I have not taken this or any other banned substance."

Danielson, 37, has already served a six-month ban, in 2012-13, after admitting to blood doping while riding with The Discovery Channel team.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/03/csports-us-cycling-doping-danielson-idCAKCN0Q80KF20150803

It's a miracle. It's like the immaculate conception, but with testosterone.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

so Dear Wiggo, by deduction, Froome is a pretty good responder, and a chemical alien innit

That's my take on it.

His 2nd place in the World's B TT in 2007 apparently caught Theze's eye.

That TT was in Cape Town. Nice and close to home for any assistance required.

When he goes to Stuttgart, he comes 41st. Taxus4A said something I couldn't make heads or tails of, but for me, this points to "prepared" and "not prepared". About 3 months apart.


But if you read the UCI WCC webpage where Theze mentions Froome, dated 2007, catching his eye, he says "I saw already last year (ie 2006) he had a good engine".

He came 28th and 287th or something in Gran Fondos in 2006. 17th in Comm games TT, which sounds ok, till you find it's 4 minutes behind Dr Hutchinshon and 5'21" down on the winner. Over 40km. That TT was along Beach Rd.

Stephen Cummings put 1.5 minutes into him.

Meh.

Super responder.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

so Dear Wiggo, by deduction, Froome is a pretty good responder, and a chemical alien innit

That's my take on it.

His 2nd place in the World's B TT in 2007 apparently caught Theze's eye.

That TT was in Cape Town. Nice and close to home for any assistance required.

When he goes to Stuttgart, he comes 41st. Taxus4A said something I couldn't make heads or tails of, but for me, this points to "prepared" and "not prepared". About 3 months apart.


But if you read the UCI WCC webpage where Theze mentions Froome, dated 2007, catching his eye, he says "I saw already last year (ie 2006) he had a good engine".

He came 28th and 287th or something in Gran Fondos in 2006. 17th in Comm games TT, which sounds ok, till you find it's 4 minutes behind Dr Hutchinshon and 5'21" down on the winner. Over 40km. That TT was along Beach Rd.

Stephen Cummings put 1.5 minutes into him.

Meh.

Super responder.

To me, it is not the B World champs, nor the A world champs, for one, Istill reckon he is charged and prepared for the A worlds, and for the Giro delle Regioni win, even like a Wiggins l'Avenir stage win. And I still think he was prepared for Commonwealth Games. He was still charged.

You know his "mentor, his counsel", David Kinjah or whatever his name is, the Kenyan rider, the african Kenyan rider, not a colonial, a Kenyan Kenyan rider, he was in the breakaway in the rr around the Botanic what Matt Hayman won, Kenjah or Kinjah, or however his name is spelled, got into a break, and Matt Keenan and (I think he was commentating with Phil "early onset senility" Liggett) and they were raving about Kenjah. Keenan especially. About 8 years and 11 months ago, nine years ago give or take two months.

what was my point.

OK, its not even the tell (the gran fondos).

Gran Fondos are not the tell.

Which tt did Froome crash at the start. I cant be conflating it with Rasmussen can I? I know chicken did, but I thought vroome crashed at some chrono. Was it worlds? It was not Commonwealth was it?

to me, the Commonwealth chrono is the biggest tell. He finished nearly 20th, to amateurs and a few mediocre pros like Ben Day and NAthan ONeil, he was nowhere.

He finished 18th. And he goes on to win the highest calibre timetrials in the world when he could not beat a few amateur Scottish timetrialists like Hutchinson. Some mediocre Commonwealth amateur chrono riders. I had previously written this off, and thought about his strong timetrials in the Tour. The 40th place in the Worlds, well, there were atleast a significant amount of strong pros in the timetrials like Bodrogi. But they were on the podium innit. Rich and Pewschel and Bodrogi on the podium or top 5. So how does vroom now win. Did those timetrialers i mention dope? most definitely. But we are talking vroom and the possibility he is clean. (or we are simply patronising empire crew)

the timetrial in the commonwealth games in Melbourne, I think i might have visited in and then went home to see the tv coverage, chronos difficult to follow without the tv.

so vroom aliens from mediocre rider in the amateur events. he then wins when the entire professional field is doping. yep. sounds legit.