Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[kwikki]

Thanks for that image, snipes.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Walsh admits Froome broke the rules. But the rules don't apply. Race jury "could not bring themselves to penalise a rider so desperate to win".
What a sackoshite the whole shebang is!

bike broken through no fault of one's own....

was any advantage even gained running forward?.......meanwhile nairo was pulled along by a moto

Mark L

Was any advantage gained? Yes, the distance he ran was gained.

Cadel Evans lost the Vuelta because of a puncture on the final climb, he didn't get a bonus.

To be honest he probably gave himself a disadvantage by running up the hill as he was (probably) moving away from his team car - he would have been better off staying out, or running down the hill to get his replacement bike.

Which is why they have the "official" Mavic replacement bike service and you have your teammates. He didn't want anyone those, alas he got a time bonus for denying all of those options.

True the Mavic service is there for that. Who knows what he was thinking, wouldn't be surprised if he was dazed and panicked, the three of them did give the motorbike a fairly big smack. And I'd say the same if it was any other rider it happened to (eg Bertie) - one minute in a comfortable position, the next- bang! Knackered bike, in pain no doubt, and seeing the race slipping through his fingers.

 

[DanielSong39]

If you saw the Ventoux stage in the 2013 Tour and the La Pierre-Saint-Martin stage in the 2015 Tour... well, it speaks for itself. Traditional doping has its limits.

Not quite as comical as Cancellara at 2010 Paris-Roubaix and Tour of Flanders, so Froome has a ways to go.

Obviously mechanical doping has been around for a while.

 

[DanielSong39]

As for the Ventoux stage, Froome was definitely running in an attempt to get an advantage - probably saved himself a few seconds by getting to a less crowded section that was more accessible to the team car. As it turned out, his marathon act saved him close to two minutes - well done, Froome!

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Walsh admits Froome broke the rules. But the rules don't apply. Race jury "could not bring themselves to penalise a rider so desperate to win".
What a sackoshite the whole shebang is!

bike broken through no fault of one's own....

was any advantage even gained running forward?.......meanwhile nairo was pulled along by a moto

Mark L

Was any advantage gained? Yes, the distance he ran was gained.

Cadel Evans lost the Vuelta because of a puncture on the final climb, he didn't get a bonus.

To be honest he probably gave himself a disadvantage by running up the hill as he was (probably) moving away from his team car - he would have been better off staying out, or running down the hill to get his replacement bike.

He broke the rules.

So should the race be stopped for a bad blood bag and wait until the rider recovers?

I never questioned whether he had broken the rules - I just said I didn't think he had gained an advantage from the running. In my view he would have been better waiting, even for a Mavic bike - and he probably would have got one with the right pedals without all that panic after running around. And quite what it has to do with blood bags I don't know.

 

[DanielSong39]

We don't know what Froome was thinking, but the road does get wider just a few meters up from where he crashed, and I'm pretty sure Froome knew that. He might have misjudged the distance, though.

Shocked at how slow the neutral service bike was compared to his own (and those of his competitors) - I guess all the bikes are doped?

 

[Mr.38%]

So no arm warmers today. I guess this will proof something as well, just tell me what?

 

[samhocking]

Re:

We don't know what Froome was thinking, but the road does get wider just a few meters up from where he crashed, and I'm pretty sure Froome knew that. He might have misjudged the distance, though.

Shocked at how slow the neutral service bike was compared to his own (and those of his competitors) - I guess all the bikes are doped?

Don't think he misjudged distance, but Froome's in yellow, so his team car would have been just behind the Mavic car that services him, which ultimately drove up behind Quintana group as gap was just under a minute still. Sky has 1st spot in convoy behind the commi when the yellow jersey team. The commi in red skoda passes Froome running, then the Mavic catches up and car gives him a bike, but behind the Mavic car should be the Team Sky car. I appreciate there's no barriers and so they can't get up to him, but why didn't Blem just run with his bike as soon as they knew. Froome was on the radio as soon as he crashed? I can only assume Team Sky car wasn't actually in position 1 in the convoy of team cars and why Froome had no option but to run as he had no mechanic able to get to him in the car and it was so near the barriers anyway? Shame there's not an overhead video feed of the whole thing unfolding really.

 

[Lyon]

Maybe Froome ran for the same reason a footballer will roll around on the pitch a couple times after an illegal tackle? To get the referees attention...

Cyclings coming home.

 

[Microchip]

Re:

Meanwhile Mark Barfield and Sky head mechanic Gary Blem are discussing 50 grams of water vapour while Froome's bikes are being x-rayed.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-uses-x-ray-machine-to-search-for-mechanical-doping-at-the-tour-de-france/

Why is this so secretive? It's too secretive.

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Team Sky today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owTxi5yinoo

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Meanwhile Mark Barfield and Sky head mechanic Gary Blem are discussing 50 grams of water vapour while Froome's bikes are being x-rayed.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-uses-x-ray-machine-to-search-for-mechanical-doping-at-the-tour-de-france/

Why is this so secretive? It's too secretive.

That tent will be, at least in part, to contain X-ray emission.

This isn't the iPad app, this was a true mobile X-ray check.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Meanwhile Mark Barfield and Sky head mechanic Gary Blem are discussing 50 grams of water vapour while Froome's bikes are being x-rayed.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-uses-x-ray-machine-to-search-for-mechanical-doping-at-the-tour-de-france/

Why is this so secretive? It's too secretive.

That tent will be, at least in part, to contain X-ray emission.

This isn't the iPad app, this was a true mobile X-ray check.

Is this from the Andorra stage?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Yes

 

[Microchip]

Re: Re:

Then only part should be opaque...they can be doing nothing in here...I don't like it.

There's no transparency here...

That tent will be, at least in part, to contain X-ray emission.

This isn't the iPad app, this was a true mobile X-ray check.

 

[Microchip]

Or does it need to be opaque? Just re-read what you wrote...if it's to contain the x-rays, then just a shield is needed, does it need to be a solid colour?

 

[samhocking]

I don't think that's the xray machine unless they've taken it out of the black box trailer is was originally in. That's probably where the computer equipment is and the other testing equipment i'd imagine.

 

[Chaddy]

Re:

I don't think that's the xray machine unless they've taken it out of the black box trailer is was originally in. That's probably where the computer equipment is and the other testing equipment i'd imagine.

I think thats the xray machine, I thats it has the radioactive caution sign outside

 

[ontheroad]

Brailsford comments at todays press conference. This one particularly jumped out at me and is predictable.


“I think it’s pretty important what Chris did at the end of last year when he went into the lab and put himself up for testing independently of the team, and I think the numbers told a significant story,” Brailsford said. “People certainly aren’t asking the same questions as they have done in the past. It’s difficult to ask for VAM and power data if you’re going downhill and dropping everybody.”


I believe that the downhill attack was designed to try and explain away performance in a non doping related manner. I thought at the time that the attack was illogical and dangerous especially when you consider how dominant Froome has been in the meantime. Although it was a brave move, he simply didn't need to take unnecessary risks by attacking to gain a handful of seconds. It was another device to explain away his dominance. Read similar for the attack from 10km out on the day before Ventoux. GC riders don't normally get involved in big efforts like that for scant reward considering the bigger battles that lie ahead. They have to conserve energy when the opportunity is there. Froome however has been practically full gas from day one with no dips in form.

I do agree with Brailsford though that the questions are not as incessant this year for some reason. I don't think it has got anything to do with the ''independent'' testing he done with Swart though.

 

[Tienus]

That tent will be, at least in part, to contain X-ray emission.

I doubt that. The German article I linked to earlier is actually a good read.
http://www.zeit.de/sport/2016-07/tour-de-france-motordoping/komplettansicht
Everything in the Tour de France is designed/stylish, even the signs that point the way to doping control are. Therefore a brown tent stands out even more, the canvas hanging and even fluttering at light wind. Distance is created with police tape a few meters around the tent. Professionals could not have installed this, the organisation designers did not contribute. The whole thing is a provisional arrangement from the UCI.

Katusha tweeted a pic of a x-ray being taken. I hope its not the only photo that they took because it will not reveal a rear hub motor.
https://twitter.com/katushacycling/status/753961554803093504/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

[gazr99]

The lack of questions are because he hasn't dropped anyone on a climb yet, he usually does on the first major mtf of the tour but not this year. Will be interesting to see how he does in a very tough last week, he historically struggles in the mountains in the final week and loses a bit of time. He claims he has trained to do well in the final week

 

[saganftw]

froome is fast downhill and uphill which is not evidence of doping,its the evidence of him being just fast human being

 

[kwikki]

Brailsford comments at todays press conference. This one particularly jumped out at me and is predictable.


“I think it’s pretty important what Chris did at the end of last year when he went into the lab and put himself up for testing independently of the team, and I think the numbers told a significant story,” Brailsford said. “People certainly aren’t asking the same questions as they have done in the past. It’s difficult to ask for VAM and power data if you’re going downhill and dropping everybody.”


I believe that the downhill attack was designed to try and explain away performance in a non doping related manner. I thought at the time that the attack was illogical and dangerous especially when you consider how dominant Froome has been in the meantime. Although it was a brave move, he simply didn't need to take unnecessary risks by attacking to gain a handful of seconds. It was another device to explain away his dominance. Read similar for the attack from 10km out on the day before Ventoux. GC riders don't normally get involved in big efforts like that for scant reward considering the bigger battles that lie ahead. They have to conserve energy when the opportunity is there. Froome however has been practically full gas from day one with no dips in form.

I do agree with Brailsford though that the questions are not as incessant this year for some reason. I don't think it has got anything to do with the ''independent'' testing he done with Swart though.

I think you might be confusing PR management with race management. Sky might be keen to dispel rumours, but they do it through PR efforts, not race efforts. They are primarily here to win, and although they are making it look easy, you can be assured that it won't be. I doubt very much that they are devoting any energies during racing hours to the PR battle.

Far more plausible is that Sky started this Tour very much afraid of Quintana, and felt that any advantage had to be grasped. After all, last year Sky could easily have lost.

What they didn't anticipate was a Quintana not at his best. Meanwhile, they have won the psychological hological battle against other teams with GC riders not willing to take risks on their current standings.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Brailsford comments at todays press conference. This one particularly jumped out at me and is predictable.


“I think it’s pretty important what Chris did at the end of last year when he went into the lab and put himself up for testing independently of the team, and I think the numbers told a significant story,” Brailsford said. “People certainly aren’t asking the same questions as they have done in the past. It’s difficult to ask for VAM and power data if you’re going downhill and dropping everybody.”


I believe that the downhill attack was designed to try and explain away performance in a non doping related manner. I thought at the time that the attack was illogical and dangerous especially when you consider how dominant Froome has been in the meantime. Although it was a brave move, he simply didn't need to take unnecessary risks by attacking to gain a handful of seconds. It was another device to explain away his dominance. Read similar for the attack from 10km out on the day before Ventoux. GC riders don't normally get involved in big efforts like that for scant reward considering the bigger battles that lie ahead. They have to conserve energy when the opportunity is there. Froome however has been practically full gas from day one with no dips in form.

I do agree with Brailsford though that the questions are not as incessant this year for some reason. I don't think it has got anything to do with the ''independent'' testing he done with Swart though.

I think you might be confusing PR management with race management. Sky might be keen to dispel rumours, but they do it through PR efforts, not race efforts. They are primarily here to win, and although they are making it look easy, you can be assured that it won't be. I doubt very much that they are devoting any energies during racing hours to the PR battle.

Far more plausible is that Sky started this Tour very much afraid of Quintana, and felt that any advantage had to be grasped. After all, last year Sky could easily have lost.

What they didn't anticipate was a Quintana not at his best. Meanwhile, they have won the psychological hological battle against other teams with GC riders not willing to take risks on their current standings.

That's why they spend much more on PR than science. :razz:

Regard to the part about Quintana, I think you're right. He in the past has got 'stronger' in the 3rd week(something strange in that for me) whilst Froome has got 'weaker'. So maybe, Froome was just trying to pick up extra buffer time. This 3rd week looks pretty tough on paper, but tough on paper means nothing if the riders don't ride hard.

 

[SeriousSam]

It all depends on Froome's edge, an unknown. All we know is that it easily surpasses that of every contender in each of his 3 Tour wins, with most doubt as to who will win removed quickly and permanently after the first few key stages.

Froome may well have a big enough edge that finding ways to gain time in non-suspicious ways is every much part of the race strategy