Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 902 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
People keep forgetting that between Poland and the Vuelta in 2011 Froome was in the UK riding the Olympic test race for Team GB under Brailsford.

That transformation occurred there, that was the point in which he dramatically changed. He came back from that time in the UK like a racehorse.
Yeah, they suddenly decided put a nobody who was leaving the team at the end of the year in a position where he could expose the team (potentially for money, and Froome wouldn't exactly have been rich back then)...
He was helping Wiggins at the Vuelta 2011 not trying to win the race. There was one objective for him.

In the first week of the Vuelta he did a lot of front riding. He even paced Wiggins back 5km before Pena when his chain dropped.

I don't think Sky nor Froome realized that he would be a the responder that he turned out to be. That can only come from the testing done in the UK just prior.
Interesting aspect I hadn't considered. Then again, they would probably have offered him an extension on his contract if they did that with him
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
PremierAndrew said:
thehog said:
People keep forgetting that between Poland and the Vuelta in 2011 Froome was in the UK riding the Olympic test race for Team GB under Brailsford.

That transformation occurred there, that was the point in which he dramatically changed. He came back from that time in the UK like a racehorse.
Yeah, they suddenly decided put a nobody who was leaving the team at the end of the year in a position where he could expose the team (potentially for money, and Froome wouldn't exactly have been rich back then)...
He was helping Wiggins at the Vuelta 2011 not trying to win the race. There was one objective for him.

In the first week of the Vuelta he did a lot of front riding. He even paced Wiggins back 5km before Pena when his chain dropped.

I don't think Sky nor Froome realized that he would be a the responder that he turned out to be. That can only come from the testing done in the UK just prior.
Interesting aspect I hadn't considered. Then again, they would probably have offered him an extension on his contract if they did that with him
True but first they had to see what he could do for the team and helping Wiggins. Remember the real goal at that time was for Wiggins to win the Tour in 2012.
 
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
JV's clean team.

Remember JV said he would close the team down if there was ever a doping positive but Tom Danielson returned a pos A sample and the team kept rolling along while JV hid in his closet... :rolleyes:

That's my guess as to what fmk is referring to...
 
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
PremierAndrew said:
fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
JV's clean team.

Remember JV said he would close the team down if there was ever a doping positive but Tom Danielson returned a pos A sample and the team kept rolling along while JV hid in his closet... :rolleyes:

That's my guess as to what fmk is referring to...
Oh yeah, ofc :p

But that's a team enforced policy. To compare that to a systematic doping program organised by a team? Brailsford and a load of other administrative staff would be banned from pro cycling

Going back on your word isn't illegal. Running a team sponsored program is more similar to a state sponsored program, and would have major consequences
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Irondan said:
PremierAndrew said:
fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
JV's clean team.

Remember JV said he would close the team down if there was ever a doping positive but Tom Danielson returned a pos A sample and the team kept rolling along while JV hid in his closet... :rolleyes:

That's my guess as to what fmk is referring to...
Oh yeah, ofc :p

But that's a team enforced policy. To compare that to a systematic doping program organised by a team? Brailsford and a load of other administrative staff would be banned from pro cycling

Going back on your word isn't illegal. Running a team sponsored program is more similar to a state sponsored program, and would have major consequences

Who is going to ban Brailsford and staff? UCI, UKAD or WADA? Really, unless Tygart comes out of retirement and decides to go after Sky, they are on the pigs back while the same enablers are running the highest levels of sport.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Irondan said:
PremierAndrew said:
fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
JV's clean team.

Remember JV said he would close the team down if there was ever a doping positive but Tom Danielson returned a pos A sample and the team kept rolling along while JV hid in his closet... :rolleyes:

That's my guess as to what fmk is referring to...
Oh yeah, ofc :p

But that's a team enforced policy. To compare that to a systematic doping program organised by a team? Brailsford and a load of other administrative staff would be banned from pro cycling

Going back on your word isn't illegal. Running a team sponsored program is more similar to a state sponsored program, and would have major consequences
But its not a team wide sponsored program. The Tour "select" riders leading up to the 2012 Tour were all hidden away in Majorca and Tenerife.

You had Sutton up there also along with Leinders in 2011 providing the connections and contacts to the UCI. Leinders also wasn't a full Sky employee just a contractor.

Think of it like a shell company within another company providing the real services which aren't taxed.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Who is going to ban Brailsford and staff? UCI, UKAD or WADA? Really, unless Tygart comes out of retirement and decides to go after Sky, they are on the pigs back while the same enablers are running the highest levels of sport.
Fair point. Would have to hit the media or there'd be a chance of a cover up. Whistleblowers would probs be too scared to go straight to the media
 
If team Sky is lying about Froome's weight and w/kg as they did last year after the PSM stage outrage then, the only conclusion is that they indeed enable and/or condone performance enhancing drugs or whatever illegall methods give Froome an advantage over other riders. All they had to do was say, yes, Dawg is a freak of nature, he is capable of mutant performances, here are the numbers but then no sane informed follower of the sport would have believed that he can do this clean.
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
If team Sky is lying about Froome's weight and w/kg as they did last year after the PSM stage outrage then, the only conclusion is that they indeed enable and/or condone performance enhancing drugs or whatever illegall methods give Froome an advantage over other riders. All they had to do was say, yes, Dawg is a freak of nature, he is capable of mutant performances, here are the numbers but then no sane informed follower of the sport would have believed that he can do this clean.
Come on. I agree with some of that but that bit is like saying the only possible reason why you don't want to share your social media and bank password with your employer is because you're embezzling company funds and selling trade secrets.
 
Re: Re:

carton said:
Rollthedice said:
If team Sky is lying about Froome's weight and w/kg as they did last year after the PSM stage outrage then, the only conclusion is that they indeed enable and/or condone performance enhancing drugs or whatever illegall methods give Froome an advantage over other riders. All they had to do was say, yes, Dawg is a freak of nature, he is capable of mutant performances, here are the numbers but then no sane informed follower of the sport would have believed that he can do this clean.
Come on. I agree with some of that but that bit is like saying the only possible reason why you don't want to share your social media and bank password with your employer is because you're embezzling company funds and selling trade secrets.

err.

No its not.
 
Re: Re:

carton said:
The Hitch said:
err.

No its not.
It kind of is.
No it's nothing like that at all.

What it's like is the bank knows it's traders are performing illegal trades to increase profit, the employer hides this fact by moving that profit into a subsidiary in Cayman so it won't be taxed and it's not declared on the US balance sheet, thus lowering the actual numbers down to avoid suspicion of the illegal activity.
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
I'd take a punt that it wasn't "team sponsored" - condoned, perhaps, but not necessarily a team program.
I'd also take a punt that it came from Wiggins himself in a "look, if you're here to help me, use this so you can"... then the completely insane physiological response froome's body had, surprised them all
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
What it's like is the bank knows it's traders are performing illegal trades to increase profit, the employer hides this fact by moving that profit into a subsidiary in Cayman so it won't be taxed and it's not declared on the US balance sheet, thus lowering the actual numbers down to avoid suspicion of the illegal activity.
That's a better example. Except all you know is that it's a company, and it has a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands. And what you're saying is that if the company has a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, it must not be simply avoiding taxes, but evading them on illegal Iranian nuclear supply deals.
 
Re:

Rollthedice said:
If team Sky is lying about Froome's weight and w/kg as they did last year after the PSM stage outrage then, the only conclusion is that they indeed enable and/or condone performance enhancing drugs or whatever illegall methods give Froome an advantage over other riders. All they had to do was say, yes, Dawg is a freak of nature, he is capable of mutant performances, here are the numbers but then no sane informed follower of the sport would have believed that he can do this clean.
Exactly. If Froome produced those numbers cleanly and unassisted, they had nothing to hide. But they did hide something. Food for thought for the Sky believers.
 
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
I'd take a punt that it wasn't "team sponsored" - condoned, perhaps, but not necessarily a team program.
I'd also take a punt that it came from Wiggins himself in a "look, if you're here to help me, use this so you can"... then the completely insane physiological response froome's body had, surprised them all
It's worth remembering that Froome was a late addition to the Vuelta squad when Nordhaug was ill/injured. Froome wasn't specifically preparing for it.

EPO/ blood products will kick in pretty quickly but I have no idea how fast acting aicar and the like are.
 
while we are on banking...nick leeson managed to seriously improve his performance whilst management in effect turned a blind eye whilst the illusory profits rolled in..

now Barings may have been a stuffy organisation and not used to the new reality in banking but Brailsford has been round the block...
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Rollthedice said:
If team Sky is lying about Froome's weight and w/kg as they did last year after the PSM stage outrage then, the only conclusion is that they indeed enable and/or condone performance enhancing drugs or whatever illegall methods give Froome an advantage over other riders. All they had to do was say, yes, Dawg is a freak of nature, he is capable of mutant performances, here are the numbers but then no sane informed follower of the sport would have believed that he can do this clean.
Exactly. If Froome produced those numbers cleanly and unassisted, they had nothing to hide. But they did hide something. Food for thought for the Sky believers.
Well, not necessarily. Let's suppose Froome was clean for a second, and did 6.3W/kg for 42 minutes. Now he could have done that clean, but everyone would think that's too high to be true, so they could have falsified it to avoid extra suspicion.
That said, the falsified power data does strongly suggest that Sky are, at the minimum, more than willing to ignore any doping going on to achieve results, a far cry from their zero tolerance policy, and worst case scenario doping their riders themselves
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Lets suppose sky and froome are human after all, and aren't any different from all other previous GT winning teams after all.
What a shocker that would be.

Sarcasm aside. It's stunning how some observers still lend any kind of credibility to the exceptionalist hypothesis that sky are a never before seen species of Uber-talented procyclists, for which the only evidence is that they "never tested positive".
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
carton said:
The Hitch said:
err.

No its not.
It kind of is.
Come on, you are more intelligent than that.

In your analogy the person REFUSES to share info. In Rtds post, froome and sky aren't refusing to share info. They are sharing deliberately falsified info.
You're right, hopefully on both fronts. Although one person's deliberately falsified is another person's slightly underreported. But that's' why I like the hog's example better than my own. In any case my point wasn't that that hadn't been sketchy as, it was that from sketchy to "the only conclusion" there's a long highway, a ferry, and then a hike through the woods. I didn't think that was a particularly controversial assertion, but YMMV.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
fmk_RoI said:
PremierAndrew said:
One hell of a risk though. I mean, if it emerged that Sky were leading a team sponsored doping program, that would be the end of the project. Surely you don't think that Brailsford is irrational enough to think it's worth risking that for one potential domestique?
Why does that argument sound so familiar? Where haven't I heard it before?
Literally no idea what you're referring to
The reputational damage defence is as old as doping. And proven to be bollix bazillions of times.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY