Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 870 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think medicinal doping does help a lot, but in most cases it's easy to notice when the rider goes from a steady 400 watts to a 600-1000 watt surge. Also, let's not kid ourselves here - no one could pull 400 watts on the final climb without the medicinal doping in the first place.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
is

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.
Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011
This is the chubster at the end of 2009 season...



Something he found at Sky allowed him to lose a lot of fat whilst simultaneously increasing his power. I guess we'll never know if it was AICAR or pineapple juice that was responsible.[/quote]

wow, what a sumo wrestler... wearing some kind of camelbak below the jersey (or Rambo muscles?)?
 
Re:

Saint Unix said:
https://youtu.be/FDImF6mcKWo?t=23

I've been watching this a bit. It looks like Froome sees Sagan going, goes full standing sprint for a couple of seconds without gaining an inch on the rest of the field, and then just gives that up, sits down and goes a bit easier and then drifts away from everyone.

Does it look like a motor or am I just seeing things?
The Sky rider who swings off the front just before Sagan goes looks at Froome, gets on the radio, Froome then looks at him then goes. It looks odd. I agree with the other poster the fact that he kept it up for 10km into the cross winds was most bizarre.

In saying that, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neepkQjti4A with 11.4km to go after intial break is made, Froome loses some ground to the others, he then simply rides up to the back of Sagan with no body movements in the saddle.
 
His transformation is indeed remarkable, especially in light of who fell by the wayside.

Andy Schleck - injured knee; retired
Tony Martin - went from future GC contender to time trial specialist to also-ran domestique
Vincenzo Nibali - dude's been around forever; people knew about him a decade ago
Tejay van Garderen - thought to be a future star as early as 2010

If you asked me in 2009 or 2010 who was going to be the next GT superstar in cycling I would've bet on any of the guys above before I bet on Chris Froome.
 
Why no Zakarin thread? there is...but that said the essential difference is that there are no moron zakarain fans along to say it's down to diet and marginal gains.
Alberto fans are fine - they know alberto dopes and like him anyway...and I've no issue with that...if you think froome dopes and like him anyway have at it...but don't come along here with this nonsense that a clean froome is able to beat motor doped and oxygen vector doped riders...all whilst trying to explain away the greatest transformation ever seen in cycling.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
I'm not sure anybody is, are they?

Not seen any diehard defenders of Froome's purity since I've been reading these threads.

Just a bunch of people broadly in agreement about what is happening, albeit with a few different inflections here and there.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

doperhopper said:
DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
is

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.
Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011
This is the chubster at the end of 2009 season...



Something he found at Sky allowed him to lose a lot of fat whilst simultaneously increasing his power. I guess we'll never know if it was AICAR or pineapple juice that was responsible.
wow, what a sumo wrestler... wearing some kind of camelbak below the jersey (or Rambo muscles?)?[/quote]


To be honest he looks like your average Sunday morning rider in Sky kit with a beer gut and an overpriced pinarello.
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?
 
Re:

AlbineVespuzzio said:
What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?
You could look at it from another way. Can you think of a plausible set of reasons why it is all being done clean by Sky? is there anything that you see which would give rise that its natural?

That might answer the question...
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
I don't think that answers his question. He's not suspecting a clean performance, he's suspecting a dirty performance and is asking if anybody knows what could be giving Sky the edge.

If I may be so bold as to summarise what I've read here, I'd say a mixture of theories consisting of advantage gained by either or both mechanical and pharma doping, with the edge given by collusion with the authorities.

Whilst these are possible, there is no clear evidence of what it is yet. But clean, it isn't.
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
AlbineVespuzzio said:
What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?
You could look at it from another way. Can you think of a plausible set of reasons why it is all being done clean by Sky?
Of course there would be reasons, like just to "be clean". But that doesn't help me at all, as there is no relationship between why would we do something and how something is done.
is there anything that you see which would give rise that its natural?
No.
That might answer the question...
It doesn't, I'm interested in how is done.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
kwikki said:
I'm not sure anybody is, are they?

Not seen any diehard defenders of Froome's purity since I've been reading these threads.

Just a bunch of people broadly in agreement about what is happening, albeit with a few different inflections here and there.
here's a challenge for ya.....when was the last time a member wrote

'da dawg is clean'...in the clinic?.......maybe..xmas....................................2014?

Mark L
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
Re:

kwikki said:
I don't think that answers his question. He's not suspecting a clean performance, he's suspecting a dirty performance and is asking if anybody knows what could be giving Sky the edge.

If I may be so bold as to summarise what I've read here, I'd say a mixture of theories consisting of advantage gained by either or both mechanical and pharma doping, with the edge given by collusion with the authorities.

Whilst these are possible, there is no clear evidence of what it is yet. But clean, it isn't.
Yes, thanks, it's sort of my idea. I guess I was just hoping "forum experts" might have a less vague idea, even if based in flimsy evidence.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Well as no-one on here (that I am aware of) has access to millions of pounds and the latest laboratory experimental drugs (which is where a lot of doping advances are found)

Then it is no surprise that the "experts" do not for sure or have many concrete theories.

For all we know there could be a EPO mark 2 which is 10 times more potent out there that some lab have cooked up that no-one in the cycling world or drug testing community even know of yet apart from sky.
 

TMJ

Jul 18, 2015
46
0
0
Both Froome and his rival Quintana, plus Valverde for that matter have young children.

Would people abusing dodgy medicine risk having babies?

Well, since we are talking about the dark world of professional cycling then probably yes, they would in my opinion.

However, does anybody on here think the fact Froome is a new father give strong credence to him not using dodgy drugs - particularly over the previous 18m to 2 years?

It's probable Armstrong's drug abuse caused his cancer and after nearly dying he came back and did it all again!

We also know cyclists have used drugs that have never passed human clinical trials, but despite this does anyone think Froome must have been clean around the time Michelle became pregnant because anything else would have been totally reckless.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Re:

kwikki said:
I'm not sure anybody is, are they?

Not seen any diehard defenders of Froome's purity since I've been reading these threads.

Just a bunch of people broadly in agreement about what is happening, albeit with a few different inflections here and there.
Instead of defending Froome they have decided to challenge the clinic over minor issues. It is all very transparent and reeks of fanboys having had their eyes opened but finding themselves not yet ready to accept what they see.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Re:

TMJ said:
Both Froome and his rival Quintana, plus Valverde for that matter have young children.

Would people abusing dodgy medicine risk having babies?

Well, since we are talking about the dark world of professional cycling then probably yes, they would in my opinion.

However, does anybody on here think the fact Froome is a new father give strong credence to him not using dodgy drugs - particularly over the previous 18m to 2 years?

It's probable Armstrong's drug abuse caused his cancer and after nearly dying he came back and did it all again!

We also know cyclists have used drugs that have never passed human clinical trials, but despite this does anyone think Froome must have been clean around the time Michelle became pregnant because anything else would have been totally reckless.
You are summising that it was a planned pregnancy and they were actively trying as opposed to an accident.
Equally they will have cycles of drugs that they are on and in the off season he could well have to take a break for health reasons and so his body can return to it's natural state in order for the doctors to have a baseline to measure his progress come the next cycle / season
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

Lyon said:
kwikki said:
I'm not sure anybody is, are they?

Not seen any diehard defenders of Froome's purity since I've been reading these threads.

Just a bunch of people broadly in agreement about what is happening, albeit with a few different inflections here and there.
Instead of defending Froome they have decided to challenge the clinic over minor issues. It is all very transparent and reeks of fanboys having had their eyes opened but finding themselves not yet ready to accept what they see.
Well, some of what gets posted in here is bordering on the realms of the bizarre, and I'd include your post in that description. Sounds pretty paranoid. It's just a bunch of people yacking about bike riding, isnt it? Same sort of crap that goes on in football forums, Rugby forums, cricket forums, baseball forums...
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Any evidence that male doping affects genes and thus can harm potential baby? Even if it does, it's very unlikely that those riders thought about it in that way. When injecting is as part of your daily routine, you won't think about it even if you sit down and plan it all out (which must not always be the case); that would be like giving up cornflakes every breakfast, especially if you trust your team doctor.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
DanielSong39 said:
...the bike starts to accelerate while the rider does not visibly apply more effort. Sudden acceleration is achieved without the bike swaying in any noticeable manner - as 600-1000+ watt surge is achieved without the cyclist applying additional downforce...
Totally agree with this observation.
 
Jul 20, 2016
242
0
0
I don't think "potential dangers" even enter the consideration of young riders. The assumption is that they generally come from poor, uneducated backgrounds (Landis comes to mind) like football players, for instance, and just do what they are told. Eventually they become proficient in communicating and in the cycling language/culture, but that doesn't mean they suddenly begin to think things through..
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

AlbineVespuzzio said:
I don't think "potential dangers" even enter the consideration of young riders. The assumption is that they generally come from poor, uneducated backgrounds (Landis comes to mind) like football players, for instance, and just do what they are told. Eventually they become proficient in communicating and in the cycling language/culture, but that doesn't mean they suddenly begin to think things through..
Exactly. And as long as doping doctors and cyclists run the sport, nothing will change, because cheating will be normalised.
 
Re:

Cannibal72 said:
Any evidence that male doping affects genes and thus can harm potential baby? Even if it does, it's very unlikely that those riders thought about it in that way. When injecting is as part of your daily routine, you won't think about it even if you sit down and plan it all out (which must not always be the case); that would be like giving up cornflakes every breakfast, especially if you trust your team doctor.
EPO would have minimal effect.
Testosterone actually can inhibit male fertility.

Cortico steroid and HGH would be very risky for a female during a pregnancy, but probably have no effect on a male's genetic contribution.

A female athelete who was doping almost certainly would adjust during (and probably before) a pregnancy, but there is little reason to believe a male needs to.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY