Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 794 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

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?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog 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?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.
But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
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?
Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
Re: Re:

bigcog 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?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
 
Nov 8, 2015
4
0
2,510
Re: Re:

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

Has anyone seen whether this trainer gave any details on what Hinault's numbers were and what tests they had performed on Hinault to be able to compare Froome and Hinault? It's quite a difference in time periods between the two, so I'm wondering whether test equipment/methodology could be compared easily. The answer may well be yes, I'm just curious as I don't know.
 
Re: Re:

But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.
I just found out that the sports physiologist/scientist? Ross Tucker that the clinic love for being a crusader against doping but who is strangely fixated on Froome and no one else, trains/ is involved with the South African 7's rugby team. Well I never, the guy is clearly full of the brown stuff, as anyone with an ounce of nouse knows SA rugby and doping go hand in hand, it appears his ethics are somewhat questionable.
 
Re: Re:

Arrowfarm said:
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
Yes, do you want me to find the quotes and links or is it not worth it as you've made your mind up ?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
bigcog said:
Arrowfarm said:
TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
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?

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.
But that evidence doesn't count for anything since:

(a) he was crap in races.
(b) its UCI data so not trustworthy.
Would you trust an international sporting federation?

It he had such potential, why did Barloworld not realise it nor Sky? Remember Sky did not rate the guy and they leave no stone unturned in their testing looking to get every possible margianl gain out of and for a rider.....
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
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?
Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.
We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.
 
Re: Re:

Arrowfarm said:
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Arrowfarm said:
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
Yes, do you want me to find the quotes and links or is it not worth it as you've made your mind up ?
:confused: Is this trolling?

Froome vaguely claims that he spent his entire career on the attack, even though there is no record of this. This is a forum full of cycling fans who watch every race religiously, even weak *** like Tour of Cape whatever, and not a single person ever singled out Froome as "that guy who is always attacking". Hoogerland, yes. Moncoutie, yes. Pirrazi, yes. Voeckler, yes. Even though 2 of those guys had very little success to show for it, we remember they were always on the attack. Froome wasn't. He spent his time trying to hold onto the gruppeto never mind attacking.

You want quotes? In his book Froome admits he spent several days in the Tour de France resting in order to prepare for the Alpe d huez stage. He then bided his time, attacked at the right point, followed the right wheels, and finished 31st. A result he is proud of and believes show his talent.

Finishing 31st on Alpe when playing it tactically well, and resting for it, was the height of his ability. Years later on the last stage, he is tired from defending the yellow jersey every day for 2 weeks, AND he is ill (very very ill as his doctor told him) doesn't even take TUE's and he rides the same mountain 5, 6 minutes faster.

Yeah, I think we can dismiss the "froome was just tactically inept" idea. And I HAVE made up my mind on that. Because the evidence says so.

And Arrowfarm has a point. If someone as strong as post 2011 Froome was attacking early in stages, they wouldn't finish in gruppeto. Look at Landis 2006, or Contador in several stages of his career, or Quintana in 2013 or Andy Schleck in 2011.


When strong riders attack early they blow the race apart and still finish very high often winning. Same would have been true for Froome. If he really was that strong early in his career.

The one major example we have of Froome even making the breakaway he finished 6th out of 7 breakway riders :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Arrowfarm said:
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."
So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.
I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.
I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome.
I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?
I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
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?
Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.
We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.
To be fair Benotti, that was Roche's way of dismissing what Kimmage said at the time.

"The doping went on at the back, but not with us talented guys at the front".
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?
I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?
I was referring to the fact the Tucker is plainly dodgy, so why the hell would I give him any credence ?
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
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?
Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.
Oh yeah? FInd one from me saying anything over a specific watt is suspicious.

In any case, just because anything over a certain wattage might be suspicious, doesn't mean anything under that is clean. That's actually common sense. For instance, just because everyone who won a gt in the 90's doped, doesn't mean anyone who didn't was clean. Its perfectly possible for total scrubs to dope. In fact if you pay attention to doping you'll know several examples. That's what makes performances like Froome's so ridiculous. IF guys like Frei or 2012 Frank are on heavy cocktails just to compete, how are guys like Froome absolutely destroying the entire sport clean?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
The Hitch said:
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?
Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.
We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.
To be fair Benotti, that was Roche's way of dismissing what Kimmage said at the time.

"The doping went on at the back, but not with us talented guys at the front".
Yep, because as we know they dope all the way through the peloton.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!
What's whether it's famous or PR got to do with anything ? The bloke said Froome had a high VO2 max without much high level training back in 2007. Must hard to take I know.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!
What's whether it's famous or PR got to do with anything ? The bloke said Froome had a high VO2 max without much high level training back in 2007. Must hard to take I know.
Yeah, he could have had 7 TdFs by now. I am gutted, truly. I mean he had a Hinault high VO2 max. A guy would remember that number for the rest of his life, to be compared at such a young age to a 5 time winner of the TdF, you'd never forget what your vo2max was.

:rolleyes:
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Arrowfarm said:
I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.
Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."
Thanks for the quote.
I'm not really sure what to make of a piece from 2015 quoting a piece from 2013 quoting a guy saying undocumented stuff.
I have indeed made up my mind with regards to where all the current evidence is pointing. It points to doping.
New evidence to suggest otherwise would have to come from completely independent sources and be very specific in documenting Froomes raw talent. I cant see that happening, but I would love to see it.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.
Race tactics and 'craft' aren't difficult to understand, particularly in the context of long stage races. On mountaintop finishes, all you have to do is follow wheels and not stay in the red too long. If you struggle to cope with accelerations, you can always ride final climbs like a time trial. You don't need years of experience to comprehend such simple concepts.

Furthermore, prior to the 2011 Vuelta, Froome was rarely in a position where tactics were even relevant. On multi mountain stages, he was often in the grupetto. When he did make it to the final climb with the GC contenders, he was invariably dropped when the pace got serious on the final climb. It wasn't as though Froome was frequently attacking GC contenders on mountaintop finishes, only to suffer from attacking too early or often.

Citing Froome's supposed lack of tactical awareness as a reason for his lack of results during the 2007-2011 period is an indication of just how implausible Froome's transformation was. It is a good example of clutching at straws in an attempt to explain the extremely improbable.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Benotti69 said:
So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.
I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome. Jesus that's weak even for here. Sorry for interrupting your group think. Give Tucker a kiss for me.
So this was a high profile coach/sport scientist who said it?

Excellent, so that's why Froome and Sky are using this quote and the figures that prompted it to silence the doubters?

Wait a second....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY