Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Froome19]

You have to admit this Badzhilla is becoming like the JFK magic bullet theorem.

So when the Dawg was zig sagging up hills at the 2009 Giro he didn’t have it? In 2008 Tour he didn’t have it either?

What about the Atomic Jock race? Did he have it then?

2010 you say he first got it? Around December?

And once cured he didn’t get a little bit better on the bike. Or a lot better. He became a GT (almost) winner overnight in the 2011 Vuelta.

2011 Tour of Poland he could barely finish with the lead group. But 1 month later he was sprinting up hills at the Vuelta?

Riiiiiiighhhht.

If this is what Badzhilla can do for you then I want to get it!

Tour of Poland he had just come back from treatment explaining why he wasn't 100%

For the rest, it seems your habit to go in circles, just check out a couple of pages back and you will find my answer.

Also Froome didn't pick up his Bilharzia in December 2010, Frank thinks he picked it up November 2010, but it seems more likely to me he picked it up around the beginning of 2010.

 

[thehog]

Tour of Poland he had just come back from treatment explaining why he wasn't 100%

For the rest, it seems your habit to go in circles, just check out a couple of pages back and you will find my answer.

Also Froome didn't pick up his Bilharzia in December 2010, Frank thinks he picked it up November 2010, but it seems more likely to me he picked it up around the beginning of 2010.

He wasn't 100%?

Huh?

You mean every other time he rode he was 40%?

Because the the 2011 Vuelta he was nothing like he'd ever been before.

He wasn't just a little bit better he was stratospherically better.

There is no explaination where the 2011 Vuelta came from.

 

[BYOP88]

You have to admit this Badzhilla is becoming like the JFK magic bullet theorem. Froome was both gunmen. He fired the shots from the School Book Depository, then due to his amazing cycling skills was able to decend down the wall, cycle past the crowd without them seeing him and get to the picket fence and fire the 2nd shot.

So when the Dawg was zig sagging up hills at the 2009 Giro he didn’t have it? In 2008 Tour he didn’t have it either? No he knew that Gerrans was joining Sky in 2010 and gifted him the win as a welcome present to Sky. But the uber-competitor that is Froome could only let Gerrans get away by zigzagging up the mountain and even then Gerrans only had a 2.45% chance of succeeding. In the 2008 Tour Froome was just happy to be cycling on actual roads and not having to worry about Lions etc.

What about the Atomic Jock race? what about it? That event is as cycling as the Home Run Derby is baseball. Did he have it then? You've seen the guy, he's always had it!

2010 you say he first got it? well 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2011 what's the difference, they're just numbers! Around December? no Santa doesnt bring that sort of gift, Santa exclusively uses EPO, just look at his work in Italy in may

And once cured he didn’t get a little bit better on the bike. Or a lot better. He became a GT (almost) winner overnight in the 2011 Vuelta.

2011 Tour of Poland he could barely finish with the lead group. But 1 month later he was sprinting up hills at the Vuelta?

Riiiiiiighhhht.

If this is what Badzhilla can do for you then I want to get it!

The Hog I hope this helps you out.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

That's funny right there.

 

[horsinabout]

Stop trolling. I know what I said, LS quoted it, if you have got nothing to contribute then.. don't

And it puzzles me because I don't know the reason as to why he didn't go there until this year. I don't doubt there was a good reason though. Better than making up some rubbish.

http://froome19.blogspot.nl/2013/01/chris-froome-doping.html

You want someone to contribute. OK here it is.

The above blog piece on Froome is badly written and has a poor account of his time line. If you are trying to get converts to Froome's rise to the top being of raw talent, then you have done the opposite in my case.

I have gone from being an open minded sceptic to now being absolutely convinced that Froome is a totally manufactured cyclist, almost from start to present day. His inclusion on to Sky/BC makes perfect sense, riders like Froome are just the sort of cyclists those control freaks at BC love to bring on. Some one who has almost no riding skills and "needs to be told how to ride their bikes" some natural talent he is then? True natural talents don't need that.
No Froome is now very questionable. He is most likely the one who was most willing to stick his arms up in the air the highest and elect to do BC/Sky's dirty doping work for them, that is what I think. And more questions need to be asked in the general media about Froome's rise to the top.

 

[thehog]

The Hog I hope this helps you out.

Froome was both gunmen. He fired the shots from the School Book Depository, then due to his amazing cycling skills was able to decend down the wall, cycle past the crowd without them seeing him and get to the picket fence and fire the 2nd shot.

Brilliant! Sheer brilliance. Made me laugh out loud

You're not too far off!

According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter (1.2")-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone

 

[Franklin]

I think either you or I missed the point Von Misses made.

Here is my take:
In 1929 they had 20 years of the market going up. That was the material their statistics were based on. Hence the statistics would show that the risk of the markets going down would be close to zero.

What you and von Mises refuse to acknowledge that this is ONE of many indicators. In 1929 the stock marker might have been quite hopeful... other markers were very much in the red (buyers leverage was really high).

Same for GT winners on epo. They had like 80 years of statistics showing that no EPO winner had won a GT. The chance of a GT winner on EPO would then be microscopic.

I find it amazing that you didn't notice I burnt that strawman already. I said "clean" not Epo. I assume this is the moment you axcknowledge that you did not understand my post and agfee with me that voin mises is dead wrong? Thanks

Measuring the present to the past can lead to quite strange inferences.

That depends a lot on the amount of indicators you use. If I had used one it would be easy to sway, but I used quite a few (and could bring up a few more). I already said there would be an attempt to discredit one of those markers, but that this would ignore the heap of other red flags.

And before you ask, I'm an Economic Historian, so this used to be my field of study

I'm not an authority on statistics, but I do know the risks and do know how to use them. They are never "proof" or "crystal balls", but statistics are a good way to find out likelihoods.

So here's the mike back to you: Considering all indicators, what do you estimate the odds of Froome being clean?

 

[Netserk]

So here's the mike back to you: Considering all indicators, what do you estimate the odds of Froome being clean?

I know what Contador think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yypE0rq0gr4

 

[zalacain]

His legs are not like that now though!

 

[zalacain]

Froome doing TT's with his elbows sticking out? Like this?

Or this?

Methinks not.

Looks like he changed legs though!

 

[Von Mises]

What you and von Mises refuse to acknowledge that this is ONE of many indicators. In 1929 the stock marker might have been quite hopeful... other markers were very much in the red (buyers leverage was really high).

Lumping together several weak indicators will not make one strong indicator. It is still lump of weak indicators.

 

[Bumeington]

The arms are not the issue. It's the woeful hip imbalance. It's striking that he can generate the power he does with this condition.

Comparisons are often made with Rasmussen. However Ras had a much better position and riding style.

It's certainly not a case of style over substance. 5-6 hours of effort with the right leg doing what it's doing is not possible to generate that type of power.

Sorry.

Actually it is possible. I guess you know how.

Can you tell the difference between left and right?

 

[thehog]

Can you tell the difference between left and right?

Can you?

Look at the front on picture again.

Do you see where the imbalance is?

Not in the left leg kicking out but in the drop and lowering of his hip on the right.

See what happens when you think you know it all?

As I stated on the Di Luca thread. Reducing the angle in the hip is the single biggest loss of power in bike position. Open up the hips and you will gain tremendous amount of power and reduce injury and soreness.

 

[hektoren]

Feel free to correct those assumptions if you have superior insight. Nothing stops you from explaining why various pieces of information, as they relate to Froome, actually aren't a lot more likely if he dopes than if he doesnt dope.


You might think it's a reasonable and justifiable assumption that Frank Schleck wasn't poisoned but luckily some people know better and treat him based on facts, not assumptions!

You might think it's a reasonable and justifiable assumption that Alberto Contador didn't consume contaminated steaks, but luckily some people know better and treat him based on facts, not assumptions!



You can't do without assumptions unless you want to ignore everything except personally observing the rider injecting PEDs. Some assumptions are justified and some aren't. Again, nothing is stopping you from providing more plausible assumptions as they relate to Froome's rise to the top, bilharzia, his w/kg etc etc

None of the assumptions made in the Clinic felled Schleck or Contador. Sylvain Georges went under your radar. Whenever there's a positive test, a lot of people suddenly feel they have bragging rights ("What did I tell you?"), but what pinned the athletes down was thorough scientific workmanship and cold facts. I can live with the cold, clinical facts. I live and work with them and through them everyday. What I can't live with is dilettantes spewing bile about something they clearly know nothing about.

I notice that none has tried to understand what I've been talking about, when I mentioned L-carnitine coupled with glucose, HIT-training, genetic markers for super-responders and the research coming out of the Uni of Nottingham. All plausible explanations for the wonder of British Cycling we're looking at. It's apparently easier to continue following their reflexes: They're all doped. Nothing will change.

Please, feel free to continue the way you're going at it. But I want you to know that you don't know.

 

[hektoren]

Can you?

Look at the front on picture again.

Do you see where the imbalance is?

Not in the left leg kicking out but in the drop and lowering of his hip on the right.

See what happens when you think you know it all?

As I stated on the Di Luca thread. Reducing the angle in the hip is the single biggest loss of power in bike position. Open up the hips and you will gain tremendous amount of power and reduce injury and soreness.

You can't tell from one photo. Was it late in the stage? Early on? How flexible is his lower back? You can make up your mind about the ideal way of clearing the bar in the high-jump, and along comes **** Fosbury, and changes the game.
What we can tell about Froome's TTing ability is that he's fast. He's got a big engine. His technique obviously works for him. Who are you to say that he could do better? Do you have pro-level expertise as a TT-trainer?

 

[thehog]

You can't tell from one photo. Was it late in the stage? Early on? How flexible is his lower back? You can make up your mind about the ideal way of clearing the bar in the high-jump, and along comes **** Fosbury, and changes the game.
What we can tell about Froome's TTing ability is that he's fast. He's got a big engine. His technique obviously works for him. Who are you to say that he could do better? Do you have pro-level expertise as a TT-trainer?

Its your picture hektoren

 

[Rollthedice]

http://froome19.blogspot.nl/2013/01/chris-froome-doping.html

You want someone to contribute. OK here it is.

The above blog piece on Froome is badly written and has a poor account of his time line. If you are trying to get converts to Froome's rise to the top being of raw talent, then you have done the opposite in my case.

I have gone from being an open minded sceptic to now being absolutely convinced that Froome is a totally manufactured cyclist, almost from start to present day. His inclusion on to Sky/BC makes perfect sense, riders like Froome are just the sort of cyclists those control freaks at BC love to bring on. Some one who has almost no riding skills and "needs to be told how to ride their bikes" some natural talent he is then? True natural talents don't need that.
No Froome is now very questionable. He is most likely the one who was most willing to stick his arms up in the air the highest and elect to do BC/Sky's dirty doping work for them, that is what I think. And more questions need to be asked in the general media about Froome's rise to the top.

One thing struck me in that post you linked:

Froome thus spent many hours doing core-strengthening Pilates

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What we can tell about Froome's TTing ability is that he's fast. He's got a big engine. His technique obviously works for him. Who are you to say that he could do better? Do you have pro-level expertise as a TT-trainer?

Great analysis, wikipedia?

 

[thehog]

Great analysis, wikipedia?

LauraLynn returns!

 

[hektoren]

Great analysis, wikipedia?

Oh, ye of little knowledge and little faith!

Great way of a non-responder. Tell me your name for verification and experience as a TT trainer, and I'll shut up. Use a PM if you like, and I won't out you.
My bet is you haven't got the guts to back up your claim, and you're not a very experienced trainer or rider yourself.

I'll reciprocate, giving you enough personal details, CV and research papers to verify my credentials for yourself.

Come on, be a big boy!

 

[ToreBear]

What you and von Mises refuse to acknowledge that this is ONE of many indicators. In 1929 the stock marker might have been quite hopeful... other markers were very much in the red (buyers leverage was really high).



I find it amazing that you didn't notice I burnt that strawman already. I said "clean" not Epo. I assume this is the moment you axcknowledge that you did not understand my post and agfee with me that voin mises is dead wrong? Thanks



That depends a lot on the amount of indicators you use. If I had used one it would be easy to sway, but I used quite a few (and could bring up a few more). I already said there would be an attempt to discredit one of those markers, but that this would ignore the heap of other red flags.

And before you ask, I'm an Economic Historian, so this used to be my field of study

I'm not an authority on statistics, but I do know the risks and do know how to use them. They are never "proof" or "crystal balls", but statistics are a good way to find out likelihoods.

So here's the mike back to you: Considering all indicators, what do you estimate the odds of Froome being clean?

I was only trying to be helpful, sorry if I stepped on your toes.

As for odds and indicators, I'm not sure what indicates what to be honest.

Personally I have no idea, whether he is clean or not. If he is doping, I hope he gets found out as fast as possible.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

My bet is you haven't got the guts to back up your claim

My claim? I just complimented you on your great analysis of Froome's TT abilities. What else do you want? You are an expert on cycling and on bilharzia, not everyone can say so, tip of the hat to you.

Really, I could not have come up with ''What we can tell about Froome's TTing ability is that he's fast. He's got a big engine.''

But you already knew that in 2006, we, newbies in cycling were mislead due to our lack of basic knowledge. But now we will not be fooled again, the Anatomic Jock Race is on my watchlist from no on. Thats were the real talent pool lies.

Please, dont come in here and claiming his technique is fine. You'll look like a fool. His technique is awfull, anyone with a brain can see that. Just wait till he improves on that part, it will be a killing field. The second coming.

 

[peloton]

This is pretty funny (sorry if it's already been posted)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuGoqvtrQe0

 

[thehog]

This is pretty funny (sorry if it's already been posted)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuGoqvtrQe0

Jaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!!!!

Love it!

 

[martinvickers]

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....

It ain't so. Or at least, what you are saying is not what I said.

I've said it often enough before, past performance is not an indication of future returns. You are mixing up statistics and probabilities.

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

No, it's faith. You simply can't predict the future of any one person simply by looking at the past of others. It's just not a logical position, however attractive it is to your instincts.

My views on Froome, Wiggins and Sky are pretty well known; but views are ALL they are. And I've looked at the same numbers, and read the same books, and watched the same videos as everyone else. They are still views. No more. And not, on their own, anything like enough.

It's impossible to prove they're clean, because you can't prove a negative, end of story, and in any event the information base is too scant. But you can't prove them dirty either - there is nothing like enough evidence to conclude that, however much some people wish there was. All you can do is keep watching, keep testing, nd keep applying pressure to get anti-doping increased.

I'll conclude with only one thing. I think it is entirely reasonable, and understandable to fear that Sky dope, or to suspect they dope.

But there are quite a few here, and i don't necessarily include you, Franklin, but quite a few who don't fear or suspect they dope.

They hope they dope. And that is really a rather different, and rather less noble thing.