Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

However.......


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/02/chris-froome-blood-samples-stored-ten-years


This could be interesting.

Just to be sure I understand.

What is the interesting part?

All I read is a lot of if's, maybe's and could be's...

I didn't say it is interesting. I said it could be interesting.

All sorts of possibilities arise from this. Not least that WADA demand a retest.

This will amount to nothing. The clowns running the UCI are too soft and incompetent.

The usual Cookson posturing. He has let off more drugs users than any other president prior to him.

I think that is true, but I wonder if it is more impotence than anything else. Deep down, we all know the clever and well-resourced cheats can't be caught.

At least not now....

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

However.......


http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/02/chris-froome-blood-samples-stored-ten-years


This could be interesting.

Just to be sure I understand.

What is the interesting part?

All I read is a lot of if's, maybe's and could be's...

I didn't say it is interesting. I said it could be interesting.

All sorts of possibilities arise from this. Not least that WADA demand a retest.

This will amount to nothing. The clowns running the UCI are too soft and incompetent.

The clowns running WADA are not anti-doping either.

 

[Benotti69]

If UCI were truly anti doping they would be retroactively testing samples continuously..............

 

[thehog]

Re:

If UCI were truly anti doping they would be retroactively testing samples continuously..............

It's funny how Cookson separates himself from the doping arm of the UCI except for *** announcements like this. He's all over it like a cheap suit. Creepy guy.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anti-doping theatre.

*yawn*

Interesting? No. Catatonic coma inducing dribble? Pretty much.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

If UCI were truly anti doping they would be retroactively testing samples continuously..............

It's funny how Cookson separates himself from the doping arm of the UCI except for *** announcements like this. He's all over it like a cheap suit. Creepy guy.

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. His role seems pretty muted. Have a read of Shane Stoke's report:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/10/samples-of-top-five-finishers-in-the-tour-de-france-to-be-retained-for-ten-years-for-possible-retesting-656-controls-carried-out-during-race/

Cookson isn't claiming this as his, he's lauding CADF and AFLD. Where I would take issue is with his claim of robustness. I think the only robustness will be with potential for retrospective testing. I know that is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, but I think it is the only real strength they have.

Collaboration has to be the way to go with anti-doping, not least because if three institutions are involved it lessens the effectiveness of one of them stifling unwelcome positives.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

If UCI were truly anti doping they would be retroactively testing samples continuously..............

For what?

That is the whole point. They have already been tested for whatever the testers are able to test. No point retesting until the testing technology develops.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

If UCI were truly anti doping they would be retroactively testing samples continuously..............

It's funny how Cookson separates himself from the doping arm of the UCI except for *** announcements like this. He's all over it like a cheap suit. Creepy guy.

This ... And he looked so cuddly when he replaced McQuaid ...

 

[danielovichdk2]

Why is David Walsh, as the anti-doping crusader he clearly is , not ask about the testing-data Froome presumably have done ?

Or anyone else for that matter ?

I don't get it. As far as I understand, Tom Dumoulin released data from at least a handful of TdF stages, why doesn't Froome follow suit here. It's a no-brainer really.

 

[wendybnt]

Because he isn't an anti-doping crusader. He's a paid member of Sky's publicity team. Maybe not on their payroll per se, but granted access as long as he serves their purposes.

Professional sport is business. Not sport.

 

[MartinGT]

At todays presentation the Dawg looked a bit fatter.

Never mind, that weight will soon come off

 

[pastronef]

At todays presentation the Dawg looked a bit fatter.

Never mind, that weight will soon come off

no hurry, Paris-Nice is still 5 months away.

 

[Benotti69]

Froome's Bilharzia was given as an excuses for poor performance.

Bilharzia parasites do not live in red cells. They live in the blood vessels. Also those with Bilharzia parasites don't have asthma...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/sep/05/research.health

Intéressant non?

 

[LaFlorecita]

At todays presentation the Dawg looked a bit fatter.

Never mind, that weight will soon come off

I noticed that too, haven't seen him this fat in the off season in a long time, and The Cound Hound will give birth soon so that's another distraction.
Mr Cound will not win any race next year mark my words

 

[GreasyMonkey]

At todays presentation the Dawg looked a bit fatter.

Never mind, that weight will soon come off

I noticed that too, haven't seen him this fat in the off season in a long time, and The Cound Hound will give birth soon so that's another distraction.
Mr Cound will not win any race next year mark my words

 

[Scarponi]

He might need some anti depression meds next year if he doesn't get a minute lead off the tt

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Because he isn't an anti-doping crusader. He's a paid member of Sky's publicity team. Maybe not on their payroll per se, but granted access as long as he serves their purposes.

Professional sport is business. Not sport.

but writes for Sunday Times a Murdoch paper no? So he is paid by the same master... so, you could make a case for him indeed being on the payroll.

anti-doping crusader is just a marketing arm of the charade that is professional sport.

Walsh lowered his strides before he lowered his colours and he let Rupert, then Wendi Deng, then Sir Dave, then Sir Brad, then Froome-dawg all take their slice of sloppy seconds and collecting reaming him.

but he took the moolah all the way to barclays, barclays bikes and bojo

 

[Beech Mtn]

The two TdF restdays are both outside France (ease of logistics) and both at altitude (biopass tests are discounted). Should make life a bit simpler for everyone. Rocket fuel next year. And no way do ASO let Froome take another one in a row. Gotta spread around the wealth.

 

[the sceptic]

still no results from the physiological test? Must be a lot of work to doctor the data to make dawg look cleans.

 

[djpbaltimore]

The original tweet from Froome suggested that there would be more tests after the initial tests in August and the data would be released later this year.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

The original tweet from Froome suggested that there would be more tests after the initial tests in August and the data would be released later this year.

how many tests do you need to show someone is cleans?

I don't think you need months to get the results back from a vo2max test.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It depends on how they intended to share the data. If the GSK lab wanted to publish the results in a peer reviewed journal, expecting it to be written, edited, and passed through peer review in ~ 2 months is not realistic. I don't know what they were planning on testing, nor due I think that any data can definitively pronounce a rider as clean. Of course, Froome's crash gives them an out to delay matters further if they even intended to release anything at all.

 

[the sceptic]

lol, peer review. are you serious? maybe they should do the same on marginal gains then.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

What an absolute joke.

Giant Alpicin riders (among others) have routinely posted entire training and race data files via Pioneer Cyclo, and still others have done the same through SRM.de.

And yet here we cant seem to get data from the one team that drones on and on about how data driven they are?

Anyone that believes a word coming from Sky Pro Cycling is quite naive, in my opinion. The one- and only- reason to NOT publish the data is because it would be absurd. Nothing else is even in the same neighborhood as a reasonable excuse.

I am having a V02 max and power profile done next weekend, and Ill be happy to post the results. I always include my power, cadence, HR, etc, data to Training Peaks and Strava. If the guys I race against want to beat me, it is going to happen on the road, not in our .fit files.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Why is peer review so far fetched? Lance Armstrong was the subject of such a paper in 2005.

If SKY has such a poor reputation for openness, peer review would give them more credibility than if they release the data themselves.