Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[hrotha]

I don't think this was as bad as PSM. Pretty standard stuff.

Of course, he does seem to be holding back in general, so that's not saying much.

 

[BYOP88]

From twitter, so like totally true, natch!

https://twitter.com/SadhbhOS/status/756152547048615936

https://twitter.com/racejunkieblog/status/756153657092083712

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

When this guy gets popped it's gonna be hilarious. What a disgusting sportsman. Him and Cound are perfect for each other

What a rank hypocrite you are, loser.

You need to get off my d*ck and stop crying.

The only thing I'm crying with is laughter, tiny tim :lol: Better bring your strap-on next time as I'm not feeling it

Again, get off my d*ck. I'm not into that gay sh*t.

Oh man this is priceless, thanks for making me laugh so much. I feel you protest too much but never mind ...

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

From twitter, so like totally true, natch!

https://twitter.com/SadhbhOS/status/756152547048615936

https://twitter.com/racejunkieblog/status/756153657092083712

Of course they did, he's an alien.

 

[Enrico Gimondi]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

Because of who backs Sky. If you thought L.A. could destroy people, imagine what Sky could do.

 

[Rollthedice]

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

It's not plausible at all, just not very notable.

 

[Dan2016]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

Because of who backs Sky. If you thought L.A. could destroy people, imagine what Sky could do.

Maybe you're right. Sad if journalists are scared off though isn't it.

Surely there is a journalist out there with the balls to take this on?

Career suicide vs career defining expose.

 

[thehog]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

 

[El Pistolero]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

Put some decent historians to the task. We're much better educated than journalists.

I once did a doping research at the Center of the Ronde van Vlaanderen in Geraardsbergen as part of my history education.

 

[Enrico Gimondi]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

I think it's going to take a disgruntled former teammate, ala Floyd Landis. It will happen. It might take 10-20 years, but it will happen.

 

[Dan2016]

Are we all just jaded and cynical because of the past?

Could this Froome/Sky era really be what clean racing looks like?

I can't make any sense out of any of it. Feels like Armstrong all over again.

 

[thehog]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

I think it's going to take a disgruntled former teammate, ala Floyd Landis. It will happen. It might take 10-20 years, but it will happen.

There won't be any of those as no one ever tests positive anymore. JTL being the last but he really was a side act to the main show.

The current UCI president set up Team Sky and sat on the board, you're just not going to see him seek out a vendetta like Verbruggen did on Landis.

 

[Dan2016]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

Is the incentive of chasing a potentially huge story not realistic? (genuine question). If there is sporting fraud here it would be a big deal to expose it.

The stuff discussed here in the Clinic is certainly very interesting, leaving aside some of the tinfoil hat stuff, but I've yet to see anything close to evidence. We need real evidence.

 

[markene2]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

I think it's going to take a disgruntled former teammate, ala Floyd Landis. It will happen. It might take 10-20 years, but it will happen.

There won't be any of those as no one ever tests positive anymore. JTL being the last but he really was a side act to the main show.

The current UCI president set up Team Sky and sat on the board, you're just not going to see him seek out a vendetta like Verbruggen did on Landis.

Wiggins has no financial gain of beeing a whistleblower. The one i can see doing it in the future is Porte, it reminds me of Hamilton to CSC and finaly getting sacraficed down the road when he started getting to close to Armstrong.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

 

[ontheroad]

Re:

It was a MTT for goodness sake. Why come here and act all surprised? He was always the favourite under any circumstance.

Froome said when interviewed after the time trial today that he really didn't expect to beat Dumoulin!! So there is one person who was surprised!!

I find Froome to be a really disingenuous individual when he is being interviewed. He tends to be ultra careful about what he is saying and rarely expands beyond a sentence or two. He has constantly downplayed his dominance in this tour, almost as though he is embarrassed by how easy it has been. He definitely lacks the charisma that Lance (whether you like him or not) undoubtedly had.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

Well said...

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Here's a decent overview: http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour-de-france/how-racing-the-tour-de-france-changes-cyclists-bodies

John Swanson

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Sure there's no surprise here, he's been doing it since 2011. Add to that that he is in the middle of his peaking period during the third week and it's totally plausible.

Nobody peaks during the third week of consecutive race days. You're well into decline by then. It's just a physiological fact and has nothing to do with training, schedules, or wanting it to happen. From the famous pineapple juice study, the effects after only 6 days of racing include increased myoglobin, creatine kinease, and lactate dehydrogenase - all of which are released when muscle tissue is damaged. Testosterone decreased suggesting increased cortisol which is a sign of general tissue damage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604346

If Froome has chosen to peak in week three, then he has also chosen to take recovery products. There is no other possibility.

John Swanson

Well said...

Yes it is a good post.
Yo Hog check upthread where some folks are talking about each others crank and getting off of it, artificial cranks and crank size. :lol:

 

[Enrico Gimondi]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

I think it's going to take a disgruntled former teammate, ala Floyd Landis. It will happen. It might take 10-20 years, but it will happen.

There won't be any of those as no one ever tests positive anymore. JTL being the last but he really was a side act to the main show.

The current UCI president set up Team Sky and sat on the board, you're just not going to see him seek out a vendetta like Verbruggen did on Landis.

Wiggins has no financial gain of beeing a whistleblower. The one i can see doing it in the future is Porte, it reminds me of Hamilton to CSC and finaly getting sacraficed down the road when he started getting to close to Armstrong.

Exactly. It's going to be someone who goes to a lesser team that wants to be a leader. Then gets popped and exposes everything. Might not happen, but if it does that's how I see it going down.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

Re: Re:

No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).

I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).

In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.

Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.

Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36 ) is not evidence.

I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.

I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.

Froome/Sky notes:

Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes

Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology

Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier

Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities

Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board

Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal

At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s

Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary

Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results

Initial inability to find 2007 test data

BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data

Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years

Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data

Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him

Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules

Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past

Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour

Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area

Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area

Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published

Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team

Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains

Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders

Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder

This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”

In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:

It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.

It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.

It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.

It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.

It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.

It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?

Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.

I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

When this guy gets popped it's gonna be hilarious. What a disgusting sportsman. Him and Cound are perfect for each other

I find it ironic how you bash Froome for doping yet love Contador Nibali and co

Stop being so blind, Strawman! It's Sky's attitude and ridiculous performances that are being commented on.

 

[hrotha]

Exactly. It's going to be someone who goes to a lesser team that wants to be a leader. Then gets popped and exposes everything. Might not happen, but if it does that's how I see it going down.

I think our best bet is an alcoholic Wiggins.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

When this guy gets popped it's gonna be hilarious. What a disgusting sportsman. Him and Cound are perfect for each other

I find it ironic how you bash Froome for doping yet love Contador Nibali and co

Stop being so blind, Strawman! It's Sky's attitude and ridiculous performances that are being commented on.

Pretty sure the poster in question called Froome disgusting among other things. It's defo about the rider.