Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[blackcat]

yes mrhender

the PR strategy can be seen as "white noise, diversion and deflection".

 

[blackcat]

the release of information in itself, is not the information.

they would not release the information if it was going to indict them, and non-negative urine analysis and a postive b-sample to back it up. Then they would not release the guilty evidence.

What they are releasing, is a scientific report on Froome's physiology, much like Ed Coyle's scientific study on Armstrong, and I use the term "scientific" in the most liberal of Orwell doublespeak definitions.
http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/

They are releasing the report to say they have released a report. It is the meta act, not the report, but the release of the report, then to publicise they have released the report.

Much like Radcliffe said she wanted her blood to be tested, stored and frozen to be re-tested in the future.

Well, when it came time to look at her blood parameters, she did not want any analysis or inspection over her fuzzy numbers did she? She merely wished to present/demonstrate/act/publicise to the media when she was winning, her desire to have her blood and urine stored and retested for and in the future.

She wished to publicise a spoken or written desire. The was no intent. The desire was completely made-up, a lie.

People should stop being so credulous to figures in the media who speak a fiction.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

At 2% BF you would be dead. A competitive bodybuilder who is completely shredded might dip a shade under 4% BF for a day or two. But you will feel like **** and it's not a performance sport. There is no way that any cyclist competes at 3%BF. No freaking way.

Truth.

I would actually be surprised if a Olympia-level IFBB pro even gets down to 2%. Ive seen guys with shredded glutes at 5%.
There is a real misunderstanding of BF % levels, unfortunately. Skin fold tests can be 2-4% off from Dex scan #'s. If Dr. Ferrari says Froome was 2%, he is mistaken.

That said, Id say the Froome was as lean as anyone in the IFBB this year- which makes his performances that much more amazing. As you point out, the day a BB'er steps onstage, is the worst performing day of his/her life.
Yet somehow, Froome manages to win the worlds hardest endurance race while looking like this.

Seems legit.

It is actually not the truth. 2% is the bare minimum you need to survive. So you would not be dead at 2%.
If skin fold tests are off, then that is the case for all cyclists. Froome was still at the lowest end of the spectrum at the Tour, while he looks normal right now. Who cares what the skin fold test shows, the eyeball test can tell you his body fat percentage is way higher now.
Dr Ferrari said (2014 TDF)
2-3% Froome
4-5% Contador
5-6% Nibali
Nibali was confirmed 6% by Astana's team doctor.
Michael Valgren is at 8%
Nibali in Tirreno 2014 was at 9%. Dauphine 2014 was 7%.
So decide for yourself what Froome is at at Tour weight, and right now.

Those numbers are a joke. Add three percantage % points to all those numbers above and you would get closer to reality. As I stated Froome would be dead at that bf level and Contador has never been that lean.

Froome has probably been at 5% at his lowest and that is as low as anyone is getting in performance sports and it's not a level he maintains for a long time period.

I have been involved in bodybuilding for a long time so I know what it takes and how it feels like to dip under 5% for a very short while - you are in NO state to ride a bike let alone climb mountains at record speeds. And bodybuilding is as stated not a performance sport. Even most competitive bodybuilders never actually go under that bf level, only the most shredded do and you feel like death (some have actually died - although often as a result of the use of diuretics).

Agreed. If the numbers being thrown around came from skin fold tests then take them with a grain of salt as they generally underestimate body fat by 1-3%. According to skin fold tests I've been as low as 6% when race fit with no ill effects but in reality my body fat would have been closer to 7/8%.

 

[.Froomestrong.]

Re: Re:

At 2% BF you would be dead. A competitive bodybuilder who is completely shredded might dip a shade under 4% BF for a day or two. But you will feel like **** and it's not a performance sport. There is no way that any cyclist competes at 3%BF. No freaking way.

Truth.

I would actually be surprised if a Olympia-level IFBB pro even gets down to 2%. Ive seen guys with shredded glutes at 5%.
There is a real misunderstanding of BF % levels, unfortunately. Skin fold tests can be 2-4% off from Dex scan #'s. If Dr. Ferrari says Froome was 2%, he is mistaken.

That said, Id say the Froome was as lean as anyone in the IFBB this year- which makes his performances that much more amazing. As you point out, the day a BB'er steps onstage, is the worst performing day of his/her life.
Yet somehow, Froome manages to win the worlds hardest endurance race while looking like this.

Seems legit.

It is actually not the truth. 2% is the bare minimum you need to survive. So you would not be dead at 2%.
If skin fold tests are off, then that is the case for all cyclists. Froome was still at the lowest end of the spectrum at the Tour, while he looks normal right now. Who cares what the skin fold test shows, the eyeball test can tell you his body fat percentage is way higher now.
Dr Ferrari said (2014 TDF)
2-3% Froome
4-5% Contador
5-6% Nibali
Nibali was confirmed 6% by Astana's team doctor.
Michael Valgren is at 8%
Nibali in Tirreno 2014 was at 9%. Dauphine 2014 was 7%.
So decide for yourself what Froome is at at Tour weight, and right now.

Those numbers are a joke. Add three percantage % points to all those numbers above and you would get closer to reality. As I stated Froome would be dead at that bf level and Contador has never been that lean.

Froome has probably been at 5% at his lowest and that is as low as anyone is getting in performance sports and it's not a level he maintains for a long time period.

I have been involved in bodybuilding for a long time so I know what it takes and how it feels like to dip under 5% for a very short while - you are in NO state to ride a bike let alone climb mountains at record speeds. And bodybuilding is as stated not a performance sport. Even most competitive bodybuilders never actually go under that bf level, only the most shredded do and you feel like death (some have actually died - although often as a result of the use of diuretics).

Agreed. If the numbers being thrown around came from skin fold tests then take them with a grain of salt as they generally underestimate body fat by 1-3%. According to skin fold tests I've been as low as 6% when race fit with no ill effects but in reality my body fat would have been closer to 7/8%.

I think that is absolutely correct. At 7% a male athlete in their 20's or 30's would look like an anatomy chart, with very thin skin, extreme vascularity, etc.
The pro tour doctors are not going to have dexa capabilities on the road, so they are either using skin fold or electric impulse based bf % tests...which are not accurate.
Much like a power meter, as long as the data is repeatable, it need not be accurate. So, they measure riders at camps, and maybe at races...using the same simple tools, and you can feel confident of the progress.

Even so, the fact the Froome can perform as he does while at 4-5%bf is sufficient evidence of doping, to any rational observer.
For Froome- and Wiggins before him, Id guess that a combination of cortisone, SARM's, and peptides are allowing this sort of performance. Whatever it is, it sure works.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I want to comment about a lot of posts about BF, but won't clog the page with quotes.

First, I hate to have to bring this up, because it can be such misused response: regarding weight, you really should be an athlete at a high level to decide what is normal and what is not. I get into this with my second comment, but this is one of those rare times on an internet forum where experience matters.

Second, by definition, elite athletes are outside of the bell curve. They are the rare exception where x and lead to y.

All that matters for an athlete is n=1.

If that case study shows that a 3.9% BF is possible and optimal clean, then it is possible and optimal for that n=1.

Just a general observation. (I realize this post looks like a defense of Froome, but it is not. I am just commenting on some methodology of some arguments).

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

I want to comment about a lot of posts about BF, but won't clog the page with quotes.

First, I hate to have to bring this up, because it can be such misused response: regarding weight, you really should be an athlete at a high level to decide what is normal and what is not. I get into this with my second comment, but this is one of those rare times on an internet forum where experience matters.

Second, by definition, elite athletes are outside of the bell curve. They are the rare exception where x and lead to y.

All that matters for an athlete is n=1.

If that case study shows that a 3.9% BF is possible and optimal clean, then it is possible and optimal for that n=1.

Just a general observation. (I realize this post looks like a defense of Froome, but it is not. I am just commenting on some methodology of some arguments).

Excellent point. No two physiologies are identical and what is sustainable for one athlete may not be for another. Having said that, there are general limits to what is safely sustainable.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

At 2% BF you would be dead. A competitive bodybuilder who is completely shredded might dip a shade under 4% BF for a day or two. But you will feel like **** and it's not a performance sport. There is no way that any cyclist competes at 3%BF. No freaking way.

Truth.

I would actually be surprised if a Olympia-level IFBB pro even gets down to 2%. Ive seen guys with shredded glutes at 5%.
There is a real misunderstanding of BF % levels, unfortunately. Skin fold tests can be 2-4% off from Dex scan #'s. If Dr. Ferrari says Froome was 2%, he is mistaken.

That said, Id say the Froome was as lean as anyone in the IFBB this year- which makes his performances that much more amazing. As you point out, the day a BB'er steps onstage, is the worst performing day of his/her life.
Yet somehow, Froome manages to win the worlds hardest endurance race while looking like this.

Seems legit.

It is actually not the truth. 2% is the bare minimum you need to survive. So you would not be dead at 2%.
If skin fold tests are off, then that is the case for all cyclists. Froome was still at the lowest end of the spectrum at the Tour, while he looks normal right now. Who cares what the skin fold test shows, the eyeball test can tell you his body fat percentage is way higher now.
Dr Ferrari said (2014 TDF)
2-3% Froome
4-5% Contador
5-6% Nibali
Nibali was confirmed 6% by Astana's team doctor.
Michael Valgren is at 8%
Nibali in Tirreno 2014 was at 9%. Dauphine 2014 was 7%.
So decide for yourself what Froome is at at Tour weight, and right now.

Those numbers are a joke. Add three percantage % points to all those numbers above and you would get closer to reality. As I stated Froome would be dead at that bf level and Contador has never been that lean.

Froome has probably been at 5% at his lowest and that is as low as anyone is getting in performance sports and it's not a level he maintains for a long time period.

I have been involved in bodybuilding for a long time so I know what it takes and how it feels like to dip under 5% for a very short while - you are in NO state to ride a bike let alone climb mountains at record speeds. And bodybuilding is as stated not a performance sport. Even most competitive bodybuilders never actually go under that bf level, only the most shredded do and you feel like death (some have actually died - although often as a result of the use of diuretics).

FFS. Do you not see the point. If the skin fold test is off it is off for all of them. So relative to each other the numbers are correct.
Froome is not at 2-3% but at 5%. But then Contador isn't at 5% either but at 7%. And then Valgren isn't at 8% as he said he is but at 10%. It is all relative for god's sake. I don't give a *** if there's a small part of body fat the skin fold test can't measure, most if not all cyclists use that test and the fault margin is the same for everyone
And no, at 2% you are not dead. It is the bare minimum needed to survive as I stated earlier.
JFC.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I want to comment about a lot of posts about BF, but won't clog the page with quotes.

First, I hate to have to bring this up, because it can be such misused response: regarding weight, you really should be an athlete at a high level to decide what is normal and what is not. I get into this with my second comment, but this is one of those rare times on an internet forum where experience matters.

Second, by definition, elite athletes are outside of the bell curve. They are the rare exception where x and lead to y.

All that matters for an athlete is n=1.

If that case study shows that a 3.9% BF is possible and optimal clean, then it is possible and optimal for that n=1.

Just a general observation. (I realize this post looks like a defense of Froome, but it is not. I am just commenting on some methodology of some arguments).

Excellent point. No two physiologies are identical and what is sustainable for one athlete may not be for another. Having said that, there are general limits to what is safely sustainable.

well...other than basically the two that have suddenly materialised at the same team at more or less the same time...just about the same time as a doctor was hired who used the same protocal for a third...or le poulet...as the french might call him

so three come along...all linked by either team or doctor

what are the chances???!!!???

bell curve with a peculiar blip at one end methinks

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

bell curve with a peculiar blip at one end methinks

Blip? I'd call it a singularity. ;-)

 

[Metabolol]

Now you are changing the subject because I was specifically talking about the sub 5% claims and being able to perform at that level.

Bf measurement tools can be valuable as long as they are consistent even if they aren't 100% accurate AND the data is used the right way.

When it comes to comparing the bf levels of the different riders what you say isn't correct because that would assume that you have the same (experienced) person doing all the caliper measurements (if that is method being used). Even then it's best used to compare person A to A and B to B. That's part of what I mean knowing how to use the data.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Now you are changing the subject because I was specifically talking about the sub 5% claims and being able to perform at that level.

Bf measurement tools can be valuable as long as they are consistent even if they aren't 100% accurate AND the data is used the right way.

When it comes to comparing the bf levels of the different riders what you say isn't correct because that would assume that you have the same (experienced) person doing all the caliper measurements (if that is method being used). Even then it's best used to compare person A to A and B to B. That's part of what I mean knowing how to use the data.

Of course. But that was never my point. I said Froome seems to be quite a bit heavier than he normally is. I only brought up estimated BF %'s to illustrate that. Whether it's 3% for him normally, and 8% now, or 6% normally, and 12% now, it really does not matter. Oh, and Contador seems to have gained less weight relatively than Froome, his BF seems to have gone up less. Again, it's all relative, I don't know their body fat percentages so the numbers I named were just guesses based on information I got for articles, doctors, riders etc.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I want to comment about a lot of posts about BF, but won't clog the page with quotes.

First, I hate to have to bring this up, because it can be such misused response: regarding weight, you really should be an athlete at a high level to decide what is normal and what is not. I get into this with my second comment, but this is one of those rare times on an internet forum where experience matters.

Second, by definition, elite athletes are outside of the bell curve. They are the rare exception where x and lead to y.

All that matters for an athlete is n=1.

If that case study shows that a 3.9% BF is possible and optimal clean, then it is possible and optimal for that n=1.

Just a general observation. (I realize this post looks like a defense of Froome, but it is not. I am just commenting on some methodology of some arguments).

Excellent point. No two physiologies are identical and what is sustainable for one athlete may not be for another. Having said that, there are general limits to what is safely sustainable.

In Froome's case they (Froome/Cound and Sky) have muddied the waters, intentionally of course, that at this stage nothing is believable, but the press and sky fans will lap it up whatever they release.

 

[Metabolol]

Re:

I want to comment about a lot of posts about BF, but won't clog the page with quotes.

First, I hate to have to bring this up, because it can be such misused response: regarding weight, you really should be an athlete at a high level to decide what is normal and what is not. I get into this with my second comment, but this is one of those rare times on an internet forum where experience matters.

Second, by definition, elite athletes are outside of the bell curve. They are the rare exception where x and lead to y.

All that matters for an athlete is n=1.

If that case study shows that a 3.9% BF is possible and optimal clean, then it is possible and optimal for that n=1.

Just a general observation. (I realize this post looks like a defense of Froome, but it is not. I am just commenting on some methodology of some arguments).

Not really. Because (at least what I was commenting on) a) 3.9 isn't actually 3.9 - it's a higher number (Ferraris numbers are wrong ) b) elite athletes might be 'outside bell curve' but they won't be doing anything if they are dead. There are still limits and some of the numbers being presented here are silly.

 

[bigcog]

Does anyone here honestly believe ANYTHING he releases will be legit? He should've released something months ago.

Depends. If it lines up with all the other data we have, then it's probably legit.

The problem, of course, is that it won't prove much. It'll tell us he has these insanely high physiological values and that he can produce this many W/kg over this much time, but it so happens we already know all that. What the tests won't tell us is whether those physiological values and those watt figures are enhanced. Only a comparison with the pre-September 2011 data could shed light on that.

This wait before the release of the data (if it comes) might just be because they're double-checking to make sure nothing is truly damning by itself, but I doubt they'd risk actually tweaking the numbers instead of simply releasing different or incomplete data.

Has the data from his time in swiss UCI centre been released, assuming it still exists or was kept. If that is near to what is released now would that be sufficient ?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Has the data from his time in swiss UCI centre been released, assuming it still exists or was kept. If that is near to what is released now would that be sufficient ?

No it hasn't been released. It has only been talked about.

And for me, it would not prove a thing. Because his performances at the time had flatlined results-wise in 100km long amateur races. ie if he had Tour winning power, he'd be doing a lot better than 20th or what have you in gran fondos of 100km in length. His results from 19-22 pretty much remained the same.

 

[gillan1969]

Has the data from his time in swiss UCI centre been released, assuming it still exists or was kept. If that is near to what is released now would that be sufficient ?

No it hasn't been released. It has only been talked about.

And for me, it would not prove a thing. Because his performances at the time had flatlined results-wise in 100km long amateur races. ie if he had Tour winning power, he'd be doing a lot better than 20th or what have you in gran fondos of 100km in length. His results from 19-22 pretty much remained the same.

it would go a long way

its about the only they can credibly do and you therefore would ask why it has not been done since September 2011 when the cycling world's most ridiculous transformation took place.....

as dear wiggo infers...i would warrant his figures at that time match his rather mediocre peformances...

 

[thehog]

The report will prove that he is doping. It would have been very easy for him to turn up to the GSK site after micro dosing the night before, taking a blood bag 3 days before and go full ***.

My assumption is the GSK testing was performance based and not a physiological test of his blood system. His Vo2 Max if he did a test will have been done fully charged on the Dawg cocktail should have him to be in the low 90’s.

Now if he releases his passport with this testing data along with the UCI test from the early 2000’s and the Bike Pure results when he couldn’t even climb in the straight line then we might be getting somewhere.

This Dawg report will be along the lines of the infamous sexed up “Saddam can deploy WMD’s aimed at Britain within 40 minutes” dossier that later proved to be a load of horse crap.

 

[Rollthedice]

“Chris is much more assertive now. Before – with all respect – he was a bit like the team joke. You could tell he was special because he had this really good engine. But he was so up and down and his knowledge of the sport was nothing. Even when Nibali went to Astana he was like: ‘Who’s that new Astana guy?"

A future TdF winner, G Thomas remembers the good old days with the Dawg.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

.............and yet...team sky would not sign betancur because they can only manage marginal gains...........

Mark L

No, Sky didn't sign Betancur because they didn't want to be the ones responsible for introducing him to British meat pies

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

He told Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad that his test results will be out very soon!

 

[Savant12]

Was my Betancur chant not acceptable on these pages?

 

[Irondan]

Was my Betancur chant not acceptable on these pages?

Because it was off topic.

This is the 'Froome talk only' thread. If you can't include any commentary to the topic at hand in your post it will be nuked.

Please comment on the thread topic.

 

[the sceptic]

The myth of The Dawg..

The word first began to spread about a talented white kid from South Africa* when I was riding with British Cycling’s academy in Tuscany.

He was racing as part of the UCI’s [Union Cycliste Internationale] team set-up at the World Cycling Centre in Switzerland, an academy for riders from lesser-known cycling countries. Coming up against him, two things were immediately obvious: this lad’s got a huge engine, but he handles a bike like he sat on one for the first time a week ago. He was a lovely chap – friendly, fiercely determined and as innocent as a schoolgirl. He knew nothing of cycling’s history. He knew nothing of cycling’s present. At dinner during the Tour Méditerranéen we were chewing over the day’s stage. ‘Who’s that Cofidis guy? He looks pretty good.’ ‘Yup, that’s David Moncoutié. Lots of big results. And he won it.’ ‘Oh.’ The Tour of Oman, 2013, first stage. ‘Who was that Astana guy? He’s quick!’ ‘Mate, it’s [Vincenzo] Nibali.’

It was rather endearing. Even now you can confuse the hello out of him by talking about Jérôme Pineau and Thibaut Pinot. One spring I found him looking somewhat put out. ‘I can’t believe I’m having to do this Roubaix thing. There’s a race in Portugal I really fancy.’ ‘You want to miss the biggest one-day race in the world?’ ‘Why? Where’s that?’ So Froome was different, in his background, his development, his outlook. Over dinner he would casually tell me stories about being chased by hippos and being locked by his brother in a pen full of angry ostriches. That doesn’t happen in Cardiff.

I was both amazed by him and seriously concerned. He would always totally commit to the team, try to do what was asked and more. In the manic sprints of the Tour Down Under he’d do a long, strong pull at the front and swing over. Then, two kilometres later he’d suddenly be back, dive-bombing most of his team-mates to get on the front and help again. ‘Froomey, good job but leave it to us now.’ At times it was like watching a Clio with the engine of a Ferrari. There was the sense when you rode with him that anything could happen, that all of that raw talent could be blown through some daft accident.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

The myth of The Dawg..

The word first began to spread about a talented white kid from South Africa* when I was riding with British Cycling’s academy in Tuscany.

He was racing as part of the UCI’s [Union Cycliste Internationale] team set-up at the World Cycling Centre in Switzerland, an academy for riders from lesser-known cycling countries. Coming up against him, two things were immediately obvious: this lad’s got a huge engine, but he handles a bike like he sat on one for the first time a week ago. He was a lovely chap – friendly, fiercely determined and as innocent as a schoolgirl. He knew nothing of cycling’s history. He knew nothing of cycling’s present. At dinner during the Tour Méditerranéen we were chewing over the day’s stage. ‘Who’s that Cofidis guy? He looks pretty good.’ ‘Yup, that’s David Moncoutié. Lots of big results. And he won it.’ ‘Oh.’ The Tour of Oman, 2013, first stage. ‘Who was that Astana guy? He’s quick!’ ‘Mate, it’s [Vincenzo] Nibali.’

It was rather endearing. Even now you can confuse the hello out of him by talking about Jérôme Pineau and Thibaut Pinot. One spring I found him looking somewhat put out. ‘I can’t believe I’m having to do this Roubaix thing. There’s a race in Portugal I really fancy.’ ‘You want to miss the biggest one-day race in the world?’ ‘Why? Where’s that?’ So Froome was different, in his background, his development, his outlook. Over dinner he would casually tell me stories about being chased by hippos and being locked by his brother in a pen full of angry ostriches. That doesn’t happen in Cardiff.

I was both amazed by him and seriously concerned. He would always totally commit to the team, try to do what was asked and more. In the manic sprints of the Tour Down Under he’d do a long, strong pull at the front and swing over. Then, two kilometres later he’d suddenly be back, dive-bombing most of his team-mates to get on the front and help again. ‘Froomey, good job but leave it to us now.’ At times it was like watching a Clio with the engine of a Ferrari. There was the sense when you rode with him that anything could happen, that all of that raw talent could be blown through some daft accident.

I assume this is written by the future Tour winner, Thomas? We want more stories about being chased by hippos.

 

[LaFlorecita]

What the ef Did Walsh ghost-write this ?