Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

Very scientific approach you got there. Your hypothesis that Sky are clean will never get thrown away no matter how much evidence points to it being wrong.

I don't understand why you even bother "re-evaluating" anything when you already know that nothing will change your mind.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

Very scientific approach you got there. Your hypothesis that Sky are clean will never get thrown away no matter how much evidence points to it being wrong.

I don't understand why you even bother "re-evaluating" anything when you already know that nothing will change your mind.

Ok

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean.

Considering that is exactly what they did in July earlier this year with his power outputs, I think that would be a perfectly rational position to take

And considering that's what you and many others did (ie cry fowl) I think it's perfectly reasonable that this data will be produced from new tests. I hope there is the pre-11 data as well, although whether it will prove anything is anyone's guess. I suspect (expect) people to claim it's all fake anyway regardless.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

Very scientific approach you got there. Your hypothesis that Sky are clean will never get thrown away no matter how much evidence points to it being wrong.

I don't understand why you even bother "re-evaluating" anything when you already know that nothing will change your mind.

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

Very scientific approach you got there. Your hypothesis that Sky are clean will never get thrown away no matter how much evidence points to it being wrong.

I don't understand why you even bother "re-evaluating" anything when you already know that nothing will change your mind.

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

Given the history, I fail to see any reason why anybody would believe any data they produced. Even if the data was one hundred percent genuine, how would it explain Froome's sudden transformation in the 2011 Vuelta?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Given the history, I fail to see any reason why anybody would believe any data they produced. Even if the data was one hundred percent genuine, how would it explain Froome's sudden transformation in the 2011 Vuelta?

Well if the data was 100% genuine then surely it would explain things - one way or another.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

All this testing Froome has done? Do Sky the masters of getting every last performance enhancement from 'clean' methods, ie marginal gains, not have all this data to hand on Froome as they strived to get every marginal gain out of him?

If not, why not? Sky telling lies.

Again, Froome needing to do these tests prove Sky/Froome are liars either way.

Nailed it.

Sky might have all the data but if they released it and it showed nothing suspicious regards Froome, nobody would believe it and would then claim it was doctored by SKY before release to make Froome look clean.

Considering that is exactly what they did in July earlier this year with his power outputs, I think that would be a perfectly rational position to take

And considering that's what you and many others did (ie cry fowl) I think it's perfectly reasonable that this data will be produced from new tests. I hope there is the pre-11 data as well, although whether it will prove anything is anyone's guess. I suspect (expect) people to claim it's all fake anyway regardless.

You are trying so hard to ignore the obvious. Sky have proven they lied. Froome has proven he is a liar. Why do you expect this to be any different? Why are you desperate to believe Froome is the real mccoy?

Why will this data suddenly be the magic numbers and Froome is the greatest ever human who ever competed? But no one knew till Vuelta'11?

So many smoke screens have been put out since Vuelta'11 and four years of obfuscation and shouting down everyone who questioned, we get another pr excercise with a journalist so embedded it is beyond laughable!!

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

The 2007 data will be the interesting bit.
After all that's what people have been demanding. Evidence that Froome had potential.
It would seem reasonable to re-evaluate your own assumptions should the data published support that.

did you re-evaluate your assumption that Froome is cleans when you found out about Leinders, climbing faster than Lance, the fact that he lied about his badzilla, etc etc?

I did.
I considered each piece of 'evidence' both on it's own and in aggregate and decided that it wasn't enough for me to condemn the rider as a cheat.

Why would I approach it any other way?

Very scientific approach you got there. Your hypothesis that Sky are clean will never get thrown away no matter how much evidence points to it being wrong.

I don't understand why you even bother "re-evaluating" anything when you already know that nothing will change your mind.

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

 

[doperhopper]

Just for the sake of comparison: imagine The Mighty Uniballer comes with the initiative to do "independent testing", Bruyneel adds some "marginal gains" spice to the soup, alongside with the "ambassador of clean cycling" rhetoric, while uttering "f***ing w***ers" instead of "zip your lips".

What would the reactions be? Public, peloton, sceptic fans... any difference?

At least, the Team Uniballer was not so stupid to claim "we don't know, we don't do tests", see e.g. the
2013 film (blood tests on top of each climb)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638364/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAF8THpV1A

 

[Nick C.]

Essentially the argument is his results sucked, he was used/rode as packfill pre-2011 Vuelta therefore he is a complete PED fraud. I get that, but then why bother with or ask for the tests if one's mind is already made up. It seems like that plays into the "believers" arguments for not bothering to disclose.
I did find the Team Sky form chart from 2011 to be hilarious, especially since the post GT winner commentary is along the lines of we knew he was a big talent etc.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Given the history, I fail to see any reason why anybody would believe any data they produced. Even if the data was one hundred percent genuine, how would it explain Froome's sudden transformation in the 2011 Vuelta?

Well if the data was 100% genuine then surely it would explain things - one way or another.

Yeah, sure that is why they got Moore, a guy so much part of the omerta to lend some real credibility to their data.

The idea that Sky/Froome would do something completely transparent is just not on the cards, because if it was it would have been done in 2012.

The claims made by Brailsford, Sky, Cound and Froome have all been shot to pieces. This is another stunt to garner fans at home and call those questioning haters.

The big point missed by all this, why does Froome need to do the tests? Does anti-doping not work? So Froome is admitting the anti-doping is not working and to prove he is clean, not because he passed the doping tests, he will show everyone his natural ability tested in laboratories, but his team claims to have left no stone unturned but did very little testing on Froome so he needed to do more.

Doesn't wash. Just does not compute. Just ads to the obfuscation and plays to the gallery.

 

[TailWindHome]

Re: Re:

[quote="Benotti69The big point missed by all this, why does Froome need to do the tests?[/quote]

Pride
Same answer whether clean or doping.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

[quote="Benotti69The big point missed by all this, why does Froome need to do the tests?

Pride
Same answer whether clean or doping.[/quote]

Maybe because he's clean and he's sick of people questioning him?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

You are trying so hard to ignore the obvious. Sky have proven they lied. Froome has proven he is a liar. Why do you expect this to be any different? Why are you desperate to believe Froome is the real mccoy?

Why will this data suddenly be the magic numbers and Froome is the greatest ever human who ever competed? But no one knew till Vuelta'11?

So many smoke screens have been put out since Vuelta'11 and four years of obfuscation and shouting down everyone who questioned, we get another pr excercise with a journalist so embedded it is beyond laughable!!

Being a liar (or a poor story teller) doesn't make one a doper. The guy isnt the sharpest knife in the block (by some way) - I'm surprised he can remember one day from the next. So Sky have lied / not been fully transparent about a lot of things - why would they be? They want to protect their methods (whether you think legal or not) - not exactly unreasonable.

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

You seem confused. Let me explain. If the data shows he was a big talent there must be something wrong with the data.

If Froome had a "big engine" it would show up in races somewhere. Very simple.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

My point exactly.

I would like to challenge all skyfans out there to dig up a race of the Dawg prior to 2011 and calculate his wattage and see if he produced more than 5.7w/kg. Shouldn't be so hard if he always had the talent.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

Simple point, but check mate.

Well done.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You are trying so hard to ignore the obvious. Sky have proven they lied. Froome has proven he is a liar. Why do you expect this to be any different? Why are you desperate to believe Froome is the real mccoy?

Why will this data suddenly be the magic numbers and Froome is the greatest ever human who ever competed? But no one knew till Vuelta'11?

So many smoke screens have been put out since Vuelta'11 and four years of obfuscation and shouting down everyone who questioned, we get another pr excercise with a journalist so embedded it is beyond laughable!!

Being a liar (or a poor story teller) doesn't make one a doper. The guy isnt the sharpest knife in the block (by some way) - I'm surprised he can remember one day from the next. So Sky have lied / not been fully transparent about a lot of things - why would they be? They want to protect their methods (whether you think legal or not) - not exactly unreasonable.

Maybe you missed the big declaration by Brailsford where he said Sky was going to be clean and fully, completely and utterly transparent. They were going to take the best training methods and ring every last gain out of them.

Now there is nothing to hide in that. Warm ups, warm downs, own pillows, washing hands, no nutella, no beer, no sunbathing, pineapple juice in the bidons etc etc.....still doesn't explain gigantic transformations in Sky riders.

Sky have not released any data to show that for example pineapple juice in the bidon is a gain.

Rudy Altig was doing yoga in the 60s as part of his training. Sky would love their fans (and general public) to believe that Sky are revolutionary in their methods. But they are not.

They did nothing till Geert Leinders, Jullich, Yates, DeJongh et al arrived and hey presto Froome blows away everyone at Vuleta'11 and Wiggins at the age of 32 had a season not seen since Eddy Merckx.

Now we know doping has not gone away. Testing was not independent and McQuaid was running the circus. The doping doctors, including Leinders, Ibauguren and Ferrari(to name but 3)were plying their trades and yet somehow people still want to have us believe that just maybe Froome is this one of kind, who not until the ripe age of 26 had anyone thinking this guy is world class, never mind world tour material and beating dopers.

Oh and Froome is not a liar, he just forgets stuff. This guy supposedly cant tie his sand shoe laces or remember yesterday but can win 2 TdFs.

And you want us to give the data a chance. PUHLEEEAAASE stop obfuscating this thread.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

No - there is NO evidence to suggest that. Its the evidence that everyone has been calling for. So - there is no evidence proving it, thats not the same as there being evidence disproving it.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

You seem confused. Let me explain. If the data shows he was a big talent there must be something wrong with the data.

If Froome had a "big engine" it would show up in races somewhere. Very simple.

So basically you dont believe anything that will prove he had talent ...

"if the data show he was a big talent there must be something wrong with the data" - you dont /wont believe it.

But I bet if it showed he may have been doping you'd lap it up.

So what is it? Do you believe data or not????

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

How does your approach differ? Would you change your mind if pre-11 data showed he was talented? If not, then what more would you need?

my approach differs because it follows logic and common sense.

of course I won't change my mind. The vast amount of evidence still says Froome is doping. Sky doing a little PR-exercise isn't going to magically make the evidence that he is doping go away.

And no, I'm not going to believe he was a talent even if the numbers say so. The evidence still says he was not a big talent when you look at his results and the way he was treated on the teams he rode on.

Asking me what is going to change my mind is like saying "what can I do to make you believe pigs can fly"

No its not. You say the evidence says he was not a big talent, but you want to see the pre-11 data. If the pre-11 data shows he did have a big engine (you know 5.7w/kg or more) wouldnt that be 'evidence' that he was a big talent? If not, why not?

isn't there plenty of evidence out there that says he couldn't produce that kind of wattage to save his life, prior to vuelta '11?

My point exactly.

I would like to challenge all skyfans out there to dig up a race of the Dawg prior to 2011 and calculate his wattage and see if he produced more than 5.7w/kg. Shouldn't be so hard if he always had the talent.

Since no data has been published it cant be done. Is there any data published on many other riders to prove / disprove the same (speculation on the Clinic doesnt count)?