Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

[quote="thehog it appears fairly obvious that the data that will be presented will be from the GSK test and nothing prior to Froome sudden transformational change in September 2011. With that in mind I'm not sure the data will tell an awful lot. It's one snapshot in time and not a set of data points over a long period of time.[/quote]

That's not what Froome's tweet suggests.
However we won't know for sure until Dec 3rd

Also it's not clear what exactly will be published on that date.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Nevertheless, I will hold a critical eye on what is presented. Additionally, it appears fairly obvious that the data that will be presented will be from the GSK test and nothing prior to Froome sudden transformational change in September 2011. With that in mind I'm not sure the data will tell an awful lot. It's one snapshot in time and not a set of data points over a long period of time.

Possibly there will be something about it. Quote from BR (in response to our TWH's question) :

"TailWindHome wrote:
Hi Richard, welcome to the forum.
Is there anything in the testing which sheds any light on the improvement in Froome's performance from pre Vuelta 2011 to today?



Thank you and yes. This is the most interesting bit for me."

Let's wait and see. I'll rip it apart when it comes out. Not before.

 

[Benotti69]

The omerta has and will always be safe in Richard Moore's hands.

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

The omerta has and will always be safe in Richard Moore's hands.

I agree. Wouldn't welcome him to the forum.

 

[The Hitch]

I would. Like all sky believers who visit he would either convert into a doubter or be left totally embarrassed at his inability to defend his position.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I would. Like all sky believers who visit he would either convert into a doubter or be left totally embarrassed at his inability to defend his position.

agree with that. +1

 

[Tonton]

Re:

A bit rich for sky's remaining defenders to think people should take this publicity stunt seriously. Let's get it straight. Froome and db have been caught lying dozens of times, including on issues like his weight loss (invented by Michelle) and bilharzia (discovered by jullich) and ztp (they had no idea jullich or rogers or Sutton or Yates doped ) where it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that they are lying.

Yet 4 years into sky's reign we are supposed to forget about all this and treat this paper as an honest attempt at transparency?

No thanks. Sky have made their bed. It's like a team that is losing 13-0 declaring "next goal wins".

Game, set, and match...

 

[harryh]

Are you saying that the data obtained in the lab and given to Jeroen Swart is fake or that he is paid to draw false conclusions from it?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

Are you saying that the data obtained in the lab and given to Jeroen Swart is fake or that he is paid to draw false conclusions from it?

Well read, my compliments.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Are you saying that the data obtained in the lab and given to Jeroen Swart is fake or that he is paid to draw false conclusions from it?

Well read, my compliments.

lol'd.

 

[harryh]

Alright then, it seems that you think the study will be reliable but the BS by Sky weights more than a scientific study

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Why wouldnt the study be reliable? A known South African scientist is involved, a world reknowned company - here is a list of what they have discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GlaxoSmithKline_products - is involved.

Whether the study is relevant, without knowing all the parameters, is merely the question.

Coyle's study into Armstrong was reliable, too bad his conclusions were a bit sloppy, to stay on the nice side...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Are you saying that the data obtained in the lab and given to Jeroen Swart is fake or that he is paid to draw false conclusions from it?

Well read, my compliments.

 

[The Hitch]

And the study won't prove anything anyway. Fränk Schleck was doping the year he rode the tdf in the gruppeto. Any study into his physiological ability would have found that he was riding well within his physiological limit.

So why was he doping? Because some hypothetical ceiling that a scientist assigns to a rider based on lab tests, isn't necessarily a level they are capable of reaching. In fact, given that 99% of Dopers in history have been domestiques, history shows this hypothetical ceiling is almost certainly unreachable. Even winners like Evans or Wiggins are supposedly clean because in the wild imaginations of their fans they would have gone faster if they had doped.

The only thing such studies can prove is that it would be theoretically possible for a person with these values to go that fast, providing all the intangibles were off the charts too.

A theoretical possibility that becomes a guaranteed impossiblility the second one takes a closer look at froomes and sky's history and behaviour.

 

[veganrob]

I haven't read yet but I'm assuming all Froomes blood values were taken for weeks leading up to test as well as thorough doping tests and they will be published as well. Not that really anyone but the stupidest would fail such tests.

 

[TailWindHome]

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Yes, but Richard Moore is not the person to tell us all is normal. Moore is a fully signed up member of the omerta. He makes his living writing about cycling. He is not going to spit in the soup.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

The CN article mentions a comparison as well as the WCC 2007 values allgedly being added to the mix.

I find it all ... ridiculous.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

The CN article mentions a comparison as well as the CC 2007 values allgedly being added to the mix.

I find it all ... ridiculous.

Yep. I bet Sky and the Murdoch International press have planned a diversionary 'news' item for the same week as Moore's article*.

*I refuse to call it data release

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

Chris Froome ‏@chrisfroome
Sports scientists recently completed their analysis of my tests done at the @UCI_cycling @WCC_cycling in 2007 & the @GSK_HPL this year.

Chris Froome ‏@chrisfroome ·
All the details will be published by @EsquireUK (print & online) on the 3rd of December @UCI_cycling @WCC_cycling @GSK_HPL


It remains to be seen what is actually published

 

[TailWindHome]

What do you know about Jeroen Swart?

 

[harryh]

Re:

What do you know about Jeroen Swart?

Murdoch owns him as well as the peer-reviewed, scientific journal were the study will be published

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

The interesting part will be the comparison suggested by Froome's tweet of Froome 2015 v Froome 2007

That's what people on here and on twitter have been crying out for, no?

Care to elaborate? Like many of this Asylum FroomeCound blocked me so I cant read all those interesting stuff he twitters about.

The CN article mentions a comparison as well as the CC 2007 values allgedly being added to the mix.

I find it all ... ridiculous.

Yep. I bet Sky and the Murdoch International press have planned a diversionary 'news' item for the same week as Moore's article*.

*I refuse to call it data release

I bet it's true so.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm actually interested in what will be published, if it does include the 2007 tests, I actually want to see it. According to JV is showed Froome's 'crazy adaptive physiology'.

Being on a stationary bike in a lab in 2007, bike handling skills, tactics etc. don't come into play. We'll get to see the engine behind Froome. I also assume 2007 was pre-badzhilla?

I think it's good that Froome is doing this but will wait for what's published to get an idea if it's been "sexed up" or if it's just the data with an associated article.

Then I will browse to the fashion section of the magazine, as winter is approaching and I need a new fur coat