Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 793 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
First of all, there is nothing like "doping level", dopers can have horrible days, dopers can Crack and lose 20 minutes and putting 388w after riding 230kms at 50+km/h in the end of second week is very different compared to smashing people on Ax-3 domaines
(Hey, wasn't he like 2nd fastest ever on that climb?)

Second, there is no estimate pre-11' Vuelta as he was zigzagging the only time you could estimate something, that is similar to arguing Kenny van Hummel could be a climbing goat as we have no estimate about him.

Finally, Sky had no idea what he could do in 11' Vuelta he barely made into team as Nordhaug got sick/injured and if they had the smallest info, they would have rode for him after TT and win the Vuelta instead of sacrificing him at Manzeneda
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
-----General message-----

Layoff with the personal stuff.

Some posts have been removed for now.

Please keep things on topic, and impersonal.

Thanks in advance.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Arrowfarm said:
TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
TheSpud said:
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.
 

Attachments

Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
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.
While generally what you say is of course true about lies, in the particular what you're saying is quite wrong.

The particular lies about the particular topics are all completely consistent with a team lying about doping and not at all consistent with a team trying to protect its methods.

Pretty simple stuff.
As I have said on many occasions in the past I believe Sky are chemically enhanced but within the rules (just...) - hence the zipped lips.
You are right, you have said this before. About 800 times. And always without being asked.

My question then do you is, if you insist on repeating this fake attempt at a compromise (since if they aren't doping they aren't doping so you don't win any points for saying they almost dope), what evidence do you actually have on this.

I mean every doubter in the clinic is able to back up their view that Sky dope, with evidence. Things like working with Lienders, working with Jullich, with Yates, with Sutton. Making up a disease, fabricating data, lying to the press, losing weight in ways fellow cyclists say is impossible clean and doing so at exactly the moment a magic weight loss drug comes out, beating Armstrong, impossible improvements, claiming "dope is dead" etc etc.

Now your turn.

What evidence do you have that A) sky are not doping, and B) that they are chemically enhancing themselves with basically useless legal drugs, that leads you to be so certain of this and insist on repeating it.
I have as about as much evidence of them not doping as you do ...

Are you a top flight sports doctor? No. Nor am I. So we are both in the same position.

I can tell you one thing though - if I wanted to push the limits I'd use someone who had a history in the sport. Leinders, Yates are prime candidates. AND at the time of recruitment had no (public) sanctions or history, so at the time was within ZTP (just). OK Jullich doped - doesn't mean he doped his riders.

And unlike a lot of people I think it IS possible for previous dopers to have been unhappy / guilty about it and want to be cleaner. Doesn't mean they didn't use their knowledge to push the limits. Ever met anyone who's been inside but wants to go straight? I have, and that mindset is there.

So yes - I think its entirely possible. The mistake Sky made was pushing the ZTP so far as it backed them in to a corner. Far better to put themselves out as a clean team but prepared to forgive one or two transgressions in the past as long as those people worked within the clean framework. Mind you, that wouldn't have satisfied so many people - damned if you do, damned if you dont.
I think you misread the question, so I'll try again.


What evidence do you have that A) sky are not doping, and B) that they are chemically enhancing themselves with basically useless legal drugs, that leads you to be so certain of this and insist on repeating it.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
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.
anything to stop him charging for the tests themselves? you know, a micro-dose here n there - just enough to move the results towards the 'remarkable physiology' scale without tipping it over the edge...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Brailsford would never ask a rider how they did it. He would always IMO keep it at arm's length.

It must be frustrating having Froome tipping the tables over in 2011 and not being able to use the same regime to help his other riders like Geraint.

No wonder they leave Froome to do his own defense.
 
Mar 27, 2015
435
0
0
Re: Re:

TailWindHome said:
"if the data show he was a big talent there must be something wrong with the data" - you dont /wont believe it.
Not unreasonable to query the data if it seems inconsistent with all the other evidence.

If you assume that the data from 2007 suggests not just an elite but world beating potential (which it won't) it just changes the question with regard to 2007-2011 Froome.
High vo2max or wats/kg in the lab shows the potential. You can still underperfrom in races. Seen those guys here in Finland.

What comes to pro sports, I think everyone are taking peds. It's a part of the show as well as antidoping speaches. That doesn't bother me, wide audience loves fairy tales and I like to see super human performances, not the ones which I could almost reach by myself.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
TheSpud said:
Come on spud. If you think Froome had talent go and find a race where he did more than 5.7w/kg. Give us some data so we can dream big like you.
You mean calculate w/kg based on watching TV coverage of a race, estimating where things start and finish, wondering about conditions (wind either way)? How much weight the rider / bike / etc. is in total? How tired they are? - How scientific is that???

You can read Vayers and Ferraris (and Diggers) tweets all you like and proclaim it to be the truth. My view is to see what comes off the wattmeter - i think that would be more accurate.

If pre-11 data is published then we'll see. Although I dont know what it would prove to you - if it shows high w/kg what will you say???
whilst it will be a wait and see i think you're being a bit optimistic to think we will see 'pre-2011 results', we will see a single cherry-picked figure from 2007 which can then be passed off in the best possible light...in which a 'friendly' physiologist will have been asked a very simple question...i.e. the tightest of remits on the tightest of data. It has to be grey and spun otherwise we would have seen it unfurnished long ago....this part of what is being released can't be peer reviewed as its not research...it's an opinion...any 'peer review' would be in the public domain based on the ra data and we know what happens...they get called psuedo-scientists...we even had Coe calling Ashenden a 'so-called scientist' when he dared to challenge paula's figures....
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Arrowfarm said:
TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
TheSpud said:
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.
Well I disagree. There is no evidence that he COULD produce that kind of wattage. All the races he didn't win or even came close to winning prior to la vuelta 2011 are evidence that he couldn't.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
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.
While generally what you say is of course true about lies, in the particular what you're saying is quite wrong.

The particular lies about the particular topics are all completely consistent with a team lying about doping and not at all consistent with a team trying to protect its methods.

Pretty simple stuff.
As I have said on many occasions in the past I believe Sky are chemically enhanced but within the rules (just...) - hence the zipped lips.
You are right, you have said this before. About 800 times. And always without being asked.

My question then do you is, if you insist on repeating this fake attempt at a compromise (since if they aren't doping they aren't doping so you don't win any points for saying they almost dope), what evidence do you actually have on this.

I mean every doubter in the clinic is able to back up their view that Sky dope, with evidence. Things like working with Lienders, working with Jullich, with Yates, with Sutton. Making up a disease, fabricating data, lying to the press, losing weight in ways fellow cyclists say is impossible clean and doing so at exactly the moment a magic weight loss drug comes out, beating Armstrong, impossible improvements, claiming "dope is dead" etc etc.

Now your turn.

What evidence do you have that A) sky are not doping, and B) that they are chemically enhancing themselves with basically useless legal drugs, that leads you to be so certain of this and insist on repeating it.
I have as about as much evidence of them not doping as you do ...

Are you a top flight sports doctor? No. Nor am I. So we are both in the same position.

I can tell you one thing though - if I wanted to push the limits I'd use someone who had a history in the sport. Leinders, Yates are prime candidates. AND at the time of recruitment had no (public) sanctions or history, so at the time was within ZTP (just). OK Jullich doped - doesn't mean he doped his riders.

And unlike a lot of people I think it IS possible for previous dopers to have been unhappy / guilty about it and want to be cleaner. Doesn't mean they didn't use their knowledge to push the limits. Ever met anyone who's been inside but wants to go straight? I have, and that mindset is there.

So yes - I think its entirely possible. The mistake Sky made was pushing the ZTP so far as it backed them in to a corner. Far better to put themselves out as a clean team but prepared to forgive one or two transgressions in the past as long as those people worked within the clean framework. Mind you, that wouldn't have satisfied so many people - damned if you do, damned if you dont.
YOur suppositions would be all well and good if we didn't know the history of the sport.

We do know. It is obvious why Leinders was hired, and results show it. It was obvious why Yates, DeJongh, Jullich and Sutton were hired. Results prove that. ZTP is not for those with a positive it for those involved in doping. Brailsford claimed to be the master of detail, but couldn't ask about riders and a doctor's past. Was he not watching the TdF in 2007 when Rasmussen and Rabo got sent home.

See your suppositions fall flat, this sport is dirty to its core. Nothing has changed. If it had huge sections of the peloton would be screaming about skinny riders being able to power up climbs and win long TTs!!!!

Stop this line of maybes. It doesn't work.

Legal doping, hahahahah :rolleyes:
 
...and apropos of todays CNs photo selection, they would also be screaming about guys blasting through the winds on the flatlands of Belgium and then a few months later chasing a tiny wee columbian over the top of a huge alpine pass.....test. face. straight.
 
Re: Re:

Jacques de Molay said:
TheSpud said:
the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?
Obviously not.

Btw, many watts does doping produce?

[Edit]
(and everything "burning" said.)
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
And anyway, the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?
I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "doping level", since obviously not all riders on dope or off dope ride at the same level. If you mean the standard "not possible to achieve this level without doping" you'd need watts per kilogram, not just watts.

The other funny thing about these numbers, particularly in the context of your comments here, is that riders known to be on full programs regularly have put out watts p/kg far lower than "not possible to achieve without doping" levels. Factors include the natural gifts of the doped rider, race tactics, wind, course, fatigue and others.

Which is all to say that pointing out Froome posted 388w is completely, utterly meaningless with regard to any question of whether he's doping.

What is relevant is all the times he's posted numbers and times which equal or exceed past known dopers with much better pedigree than Froome's. Which has never been explained, and as such, is all one needs to see that he's a doper. Full stop.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
TheSpud said:
And anyway, the second quote you posted shows Froome at 388w - isnt that well below doping level?
I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "doping level", since obviously not all riders on dope or off dope ride at the same level. If you mean the standard "not possible to achieve this level without doping" you'd need watts per kilogram, not just watts.

The other funny thing about these numbers, particularly in the context of your comments here, is that riders known to be on full programs regularly have put out watts p/kg far lower than "not possible to achieve without doping" levels. Factors include the natural gifts of the doped rider, race tactics, wind, course, fatigue and others.

Which is all to say that pointing out Froome posted 388w is completely, utterly meaningless with regard to any question of whether he's doping.

What is relevant is all the times he's posted numbers and times which equal or exceed past known dopers with much better pedigree than Froome's. Which has never been explained, and as such, is all one needs to see that he's a doper. Full stop.
'Doping level' may have been a poor choice of words but it was meant to indicate a Watts figure people often quote. That is whenever high Watts or high W/Kg are seen it seems its an immediate indicator of doping. Those Watts are usually > 415, so 388 seems low compared with what people have called out before - almost 7% below.

Also RF - I only addressed your first paragraph. I will read, digest and respond to the rest of it - I am not ignoring it. Its Friday here, so my priorities are elsewhere ...
 
Sep 28, 2015
38
0
3,580
Re: Re:

danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
 
Re: Re:

Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?
 
Sep 28, 2015
38
0
3,580
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?
Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/
 
Re: Re:

Oufeh said:
TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?


Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/
Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?


Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/
Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...
Only if you believe he's one of the most genetically gifted humans alive.

John Swanson
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Only if you believe he's one of the most genetically gifted humans alive.

John Swanson
Meh John, dont kill the the discussion please...........

;)

Cant wait for 'the study'. Jeroen Swart already confirmed my question - regarding the Grappe 'study' - via Twitter @doefnix, so dont be surprised with the results in Esquire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRIAinJo0E

The days cycling got a new face.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?


Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/
Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...
Not really, 388 watts for 50 minutes?

It's ridiculous to think for a second that's possible to do, cleanly
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
TheSpud said:
Oufeh said:
danielovichdk2 said:
Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.
388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point :)
What were the w/kg for that climb?


Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/
Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...
A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY