Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 82 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hektoren said:
It is relevant because performing well in cycling is down to a lot more factors than physical capacity. Tactical know-how, aligning all the bits and pieces that makes up a complete person's life making him/her perform at their optimum, equipment, nourishment, etc. etc. all factors that will have an impact on the end-result.
Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?

I mean, the annals of history are littered with riders who were great youth and u23 riders but weren't able, for a variety of reasons, to set the world alight as pros. Just in recent memory you have Jamie Burrow, Mikhail Ignatiev, Remmert Wielinga and Kai Reus. Romain Sicard could be headed that way too. But how many riders - who haven't subsequently been shown to be enormous cheats - have gone from sporadic glimpses of potential to be a decent top level pro for a few years, to being head and shoulders the best climber and TTer of the world's GC field? Much smaller set of historic values to judge against.

Froome individually is a tree (albeit a giant sequoia given how massive the transformation has been), but Sky is now a huge, huge forest of individually suspicious acts. Each tree's reason for growing there can be explained, but when you have the Amazon rainforest in front of you it's a bit hard to ignore it. The amount of inconsistencies that riddle the stories are an immediate red flag as it makes the testimonies of many of the people at the centre of the forest seem unreliable, and in addition to this, each further change, or further inconsistency, or further result, adds one more to the number of assumptions that have to fall into place for us to readily believe that what we're seeing from Sky is clean. The opposite assumption - that Sky isn't clean - requires just one assumption, and as the number of leaps of faith required to keep believing increases, the more the less complex explanation seems more attractive.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,808
0
0
Coolair2970 said:
He could end up like Merckx in 1973. The spectators sick and tired with and then a solid punch to the ribs and then that TDF are gone.
Actually in 1973 Merckx was invited not to ride the Tour. The punch was in 1975. I think that not inviting someone to a party is somewhat more civilised than punching him.

Where's Miburo to start a poll on this? :D
 
Jun 15, 2009
723
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?

I mean, the annals of history are littered with riders who were great youth and u23 riders but weren't able, for a variety of reasons, to set the world alight as pros. Just in recent memory you have Jamie Burrow, Mikhail Ignatiev, Remmert Wielinga and Kai Reus. Romain Sicard could be headed that way too. But how many riders - who haven't subsequently been shown to be enormous cheats - have gone from sporadic glimpses of potential to be a decent top level pro for a few years, to being head and shoulders the best climber and TTer of the world's GC field? Much smaller set of historic values to judge against.
Problem is, you're making a classic statistical ecological fallacy. You're interpreting statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. Could've, should've, but just ain't. Go figure!
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Would you not say, however, that somebody who showed great results as an espoir but didn't show good results as a pro doesn't look as suspicious as somebody who showed few, or sporadic results as an espoir but then became the best cyclist on the planet as a pro?

I mean, the annals of history are littered with riders who were great youth and u23 riders but weren't able, for a variety of reasons, to set the world alight as pros. Just in recent memory you have Jamie Burrow, Mikhail Ignatiev, Remmert Wielinga and Kai Reus. Romain Sicard could be headed that way too. But how many riders - who haven't subsequently been shown to be enormous cheats - have gone from sporadic glimpses of potential to be a decent top level pro for a few years, to being head and shoulders the best climber and TTer of the world's GC field? Much smaller set of historic values to judge against.
But there's the problem in your question. With a tiny handful of exceptions, historically they've ALL been proven to be cheats; the early prodigies, the late transformed bloomers, the steady improvers - makes no difference - every last man jack bar a tiny handful, cheats.

There is literally NO career path that any top rider could take that would not lead to - "ah, but last time that happened, it was dope" - wunderkind - "Ullrich, Pantani" late bloomer "bjarne riis" steady improver "arguably indurain, roche"

But the only conclusion using your reasoning is that everybody cheats, everybody always has and everybody always will. Which is meaningless, in a way. A statement of faith, not an analysis
 
Apr 20, 2012
4,238
0
0
Froome19 said:
A Procycling interview of his from last year.
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/DMF20121102_00356011

"I was late 2010 at the wedding of my brother in Kenya, when the International Cycling Union (UCI) checked me for the blood passport. I immediately asked to examine all parameters. When she discovered that I suffer from the disease.''

Compare that with earlier articles:
http://froome19.blogspot.nl/2013/01/chris-froome-doping.html

“Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.
"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.
“It feeds on red blood cells so for an endurance athlete it’s a nightmare. It’s something I’m conscious of, in a three-week race you’re bound to have ups and downs.''

Now, wasnt that funny?
:D

Cool story, dont you agree?
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/sportwereld/cnt/DMF20121102_00356011

"I was late 2010 at the wedding of my brother in Kenya, when the International Cycling Union (UCI) checked me for the blood passport. I immediately asked to examine all parameters. When she discovered that I suffer from the disease.''

Compare that with earlier articles:
http://froome19.blogspot.nl/2013/01/chris-froome-doping.html

“Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.
"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.
“It feeds on red blood cells so for an endurance athlete it’s a nightmare. It’s something I’m conscious of, in a three-week race you’re bound to have ups and downs.''

Now, wasnt that funny?
:D

Cool story, dont you agree?
Yes if he supposedly had it prior to 2010 the UCI passport tests didn't pick it up? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Either the way the story is ********.
 
hektoren said:
Problem is, you're making a classic statistical ecological fallacy. You're interpreting statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong. Could've, should've, but just ain't. Go figure!
Is your genuine belief that Froome is clean, or is your belief that we shouldn't be so quick to jump on him without more evidence?

I've stated many times now, I believe bilharzia was real, he had it, it in a large part caused his career stagnation (and more than that, as his results were actually worsening) from 2009-11. But I also do not believe that the talent he showed from 2008-9 was enough that I can readily believe that three years later he is the strongest cyclist in the world, and I also believe that the amount of similarly suspicious improvements in teammates around him whilst coupled with the presence of characters of questionable moral value (Leinders, Rogers, Yates) and people whose explanations for these actions are riddled with inconsistencies if not outright lies (Brailsford, Wiggins) means that I find it very, very difficult to swallow. The cycling world is cleaner, but the argument that this is why Froome is able to dominate rings false because the only people to have made similar improvements are his teammates. Do we really believe that every single team bar Sky doped in 2010 and the first half of 2011 and stopped doping as one in the first week of the Vuelta? If it were due to a gradual cleaning up of the péloton and improvement of his technical skills, you'd expect Froome's results to at least stagnate prior to his breakout, and you wouldn't expect that breakout to be so sudden.

Too many leaps of faith to make for me to believe it to be clean. Sorry.
 
Oct 15, 2012
3,064
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Is your genuine belief that Froome is clean, or is your belief that we shouldn't be so quick to jump on him without more evidence?
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
 
Mar 17, 2009
265
0
0
thehog said:
A lot of people are talking.

Lot of stuff going around.

Lets see what hits the press come July.
You mean something similar to what happened to the chicken once he was wearing the MJ?
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
martinvickers said:
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
Dont forget that Froome has passed over 500 tests
 
Apr 23, 2013
75
0
3,680
martinvickers said:
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
Hear, hear!
 
gatete said:
You mean something similar to what happened to the chicken once he was wearing the MJ?
The unfortunate curse of the mellow johnnys jersey. All those little stories that were just back of the bus chatter becomes news.

I'm sure they're prepared after last year. Froome's softly softly approach is much more likeable. But he does trip on his words.
 
Jul 10, 2009
580
0
0
martinvickers said:
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
jilbiker said:
The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.
I think it is very pertinent to remember the Balco.
 
jilbiker said:
The testing is irrelevant. They would never have caught Balco folks if some disgruntled coach did not send a syringe. I think for the top pros the only way to get caught is a "Reasoned decision". For the top pros who got caught via testing I still believe that they were side stabbed.
The absurdity of Vickers statement that Froome should be tested morning, noon and night is he knows full well thats what won't and doesn't happen.

Testing is barely 4 times a year per athlete for the passport.

No one is getting caught anytime soon. Certainly not a team who can afford to monitor their parameters.

If there's one 100% fact in all of this; its athletes are not tested out of competition to any degree to more than a couple of times per year.
 
Jul 11, 2012
49
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
More likely Kenya. Though South Africa is still more of a risk than most other places (besides Eritrea) with cycling heritage. Still, I'd wager that the South African incidence of the disease varies wildly from region to region.
Yes, this is very much a disease which affects people living in rural areas who are exposed to unclean water.

In SA Froome stays in Joburg where the suburban standard of living is very high, and nobody ever gets Bilharzia. To do that you need to go travelling to remote areas and either drink unclean water or go for a swim in a lake or river with sufficient standing water to allow the parasite to breed.

Irrespective of the above, Froome states (via Sky press release) that he got a test in 'Africa' in December 2010 and this is how he found out he had the disease.

He had just come from Kenya - in November - and had not been in SA long enough for it to be likely that he got infected there.

Now I see in other quotes that he is more specific - that the test was supposedly in Kenya - meaning he had come from Kenya in November, raced in Swellendam, SA at the end of November (27th I think), then travelled back to Kenya again for his brother's wedding (4hr flight from Joburg), where he has a bio-passport blood screen which shows the parasite.

So regardless of whether you buy it or not, which I don't, the timeline goes, November 2010 trip to Kenya, down to SA to race, followed by a test in Kenya in December.
 
Jun 15, 2009
723
0
0
martinvickers said:
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
My sentiment, exactly.
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
martinvickers said:
But there's the problem in your question. With a tiny handful of exceptions, historically they've ALL been proven to be cheats; the early prodigies, the late transformed bloomers, the steady improvers - makes no difference - every last man jack bar a tiny handful, cheats.

There is literally NO career path that any top rider could take that would not lead to - "ah, but last time that happened, it was dope" - wunderkind - "Ullrich, Pantani" late bloomer "bjarne riis" steady improver "arguably indurain, roche"
Oh my... what... wait... are you sayiong that statistically the chances of a GT winner being clean is extremely remote? Say it ain't so....

But the only conclusion using your reasoning is that everybody cheats, everybody always has and everybody always will. Which is meaningless, in a way. A statement of faith, not an analysis
No, it's absolutely not faith, it's exactly analysis. Anyone saying they know he's clean is using faith.

This is like hektoren who think that because every human is an individual you can't look at the statistics. But Hektoren is playing games as he fully well understands that the chances of Froome being clean is both statistically unlikely as knowing fully well that his career path is statistically of the trodden path. Hektoren smply rootd for his fan crush as he does not want analysis (which he clearly is capable of) to tar a rider he likes.

And yeah, there are other statistics at play (Riders and doctors comes to mind... or managers lieing flat out about medical things). But Froome is an individual, so even though everything is raising blood-red flags, it's most likely he's clean ;)
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
martinvickers said:
100% the latter. Test him to hell and back, every morning and every night, because his transformation has been remarkable. I've made my hunches clear elsewhere. I have absolutely, 101% no problem with anyone who says "i think he doped, my instinct is he dopes"

But hunches are all they are, worthless in and of themselves. Evidence matters. Facts matter. And most of those who think they can diagnose a doper on sight are, to be kind, mistaken about their abilities. As, i might add, are those who think they know a clean rider on sight.

So when we get the sneery "of course he dopes" "100% fact he dopes" I can't but feel, "you idiot" - not for the belief, but because of the insistence that belief is fact.
Okay, you get full marks on this one! This is absolutely true, there's a lot of "faith" on both sides of the equation.

But even then there should be absolutely no discussion which scenario is more likely. Anyone denying that is just sprouting bias and not looking at the facts. A lot of this discussion would be less heated if the fanboys admit:

"Yeah, probably he dopes as everything points out to that scenario, but I still hope he doesn't. I simply like his style."

But what we get are people rolling around coming up with often bizarre stories how they explain away a single aspect of the analysis and ignoring the enormous heap of other issues. Then they go to the next point *Rinse repeat*.

So yes, Froome could be the most talented rider of his generation being sick by bilharzia, not having any good results in his clean years and not being recognized by his peers and coaches, who lands a spot on the only clean team in the world, remains dopefree even when treated by Leinders, who suddenly break through after being cured of Bilharzia, who has a teammate who is probably the first clean GT winner in 20+ years and whose teammanager is a serial liar about his antidoping policies. And yet he remains clean.

It could be :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts