Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

You take argument number 474 from the 500 arguments why Froome is doped, and mock it.

Try reading some of the ones above it. I bet you wont make snarky sarcastic remarks about those

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

You take argument number 474 from the 500 arguments why Froome is doped, and mock it.

Try reading some of the ones above it. I bet you wont make snarky sarcastic remarks about those

well come on, deciding body fat from a picture is insane

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

my bad, you're correct, he gained weight to win grand tours :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

my bad, you're correct, he gained weight to win grand tours :lol:

Mrs Froome claimed he gained weight as did Froome.

But then he claimed Bilharzia held him back, then it was asthma, then it was bad bike handling, then it was the inner fat.......there will be more new excuses for the greatest athlete transformation ever

 

[rick james]

All sounds good to me so far, makes sense really...and of course he gained weight, all that champagne drinking from winning adds calories

 

[kingjr]

Re:

I'd say the chances of ftoome cheating are not quite 100%. But what are the odds that 2 **** riders from the same country both just happened to emerge from absolute mediocrity in road cycling to become tdf wizzards, just as a national cycling team was set up by a corrupt liar appartchik, surrounded by doping experts, doped up riders and doping enabling personnel. They did this while constantly deliberately lying about absolutely everything even when the truth would have been far easier than needlessly lying.

The odds of this happening May not be 0% but they aren't 50% either. Me I have it as likely as the chances that a gust of wind blowing through a scrap yard would assemble a jumbo jet. A near infinity of 0s after the decimal point before you get to a 1.

The idea that if you can't prove something it must be equally likely to be true or untrue is ridiculous

Wiggins emerged 2 years before Froome did.

Anyway, I have no quarrel with you as long as you don't do the sniper thing of announcing "motor doping is obviously wide-spread (replace with Team XYZ is obviously on a programme etc)." That particular discussion by the way is a fine example of what my problem is with people claiming what they believe to be true is a fact, along with occasional insinuations that those who disagree are paid to do so. I think we don't need that for a fruitful discussion, and I believe we would have fewer tensions and squabbles and bans, and people leaving the forum out of frustration, that's all.

@Benotti, the gist I get is that you assume that everyone who has ever doped will do so throughout the rest of his career and after that invariably use his knowledge to dope each and every young rider they can get their hands on. I disagree with you, if that is indeed an accurate reflection of your views.

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

my bad, you're correct, he gained weight to win grand tours :lol:

Mrs Froome claimed he gained weight as did Froome.

But then he claimed Bilharzia held him back, then it was asthma, then it was bad bike handling, then it was the inner fat.......there will be more new excuses for the greatest athlete transformation ever

You forgot, that since he was just a donkey dom. He never had the chance to prove just how good he was.

 

[rick james]

again all true

 

[mrhender]

Re:

again all true

But where is the precedent?

We can all agree some riders are held back due to various reasons.

But I know of no cases where the gap between bottom and top was this big. (in any sports)

Seriously, SKY was supposed to have the most brain power, and ressources to maximizing rider potential.

How come they were trying to offload Froome, rather than doing as "usual"?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

my bad, you're correct, he gained weight to win grand tours :lol:

Mrs Froome claimed he gained weight as did Froome.

But then he claimed Bilharzia held him back, then it was asthma, then it was bad bike handling, then it was the inner fat.......there will be more new excuses for the greatest athlete transformation ever

You forgot, that since he was just a donkey dom. He never had the chance to prove just how good he was.

:lol:

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

Swart told us Froome lost the fat in order to win GTs.

That the claims are he has 10% when it is well known most riders are at 6% or less for GTs is more lies from Froome, but hey don't let that get in the way of obfuscation.

my bad, you're correct, he gained weight to win grand tours :lol:

Mrs Froome claimed he gained weight as did Froome.

But then he claimed Bilharzia held him back, then it was asthma, then it was bad bike handling, then it was the inner fat.......there will be more new excuses for the greatest athlete transformation ever

You forgot, that since he was just a donkey dom. He never had the chance to prove just how good he was.

Calling him a donkey is actaully rather generous. He was pack fodder. Nothing more.

 

[EdgarWinner]

Re: Re:

[/quote] Calling him a donkey is actaully rather generous. He was pack fodder. Nothing more.[/quote]

I like pack filler.

 

[thehog]

All class is our Dawg yet LRP was stupid enough to tell Aru not to attack Froome’s alleged mechanical...

“There were a few unsportsmanlike things that went on. It’s fair to say that there was an alliance amongst the stronger guys. That’s not uncommon in cycling. At the same time, my team-mates should have been there.”

“But when Dan Martin comes up to you and says that Chris is going around asking the other GC guys to gang up and attack Richie, that was quite a bitter pill to swallow,” Porte says.

https://rouleur.cc/editorial/richie-porte/

 

[wansteadimp]

All class is our Dawg yet LRP was stupid enough to tell Aru not to attack Froome’s alleged mechanical...

“There were a few unsportsmanlike things that went on. It’s fair to say that there was an alliance amongst the stronger guys. That’s not uncommon in cycling. At the same time, my team-mates should have been there.”

“But when Dan Martin comes up to you and says that Chris is going around asking the other GC guys to gang up and attack Richie, that was quite a bitter pill to swallow,” Porte says.

https://rouleur.cc/editorial/richie-porte/

Or was it Martin playing Porte off against Froome?

 

[brownbobby]

Ive been a long time follower of this forum and this thread in particular, but posting for the first time to get an answer/opinions on one question that i've never really found an explanation to that satisfies my curiosity...

The most oft repeated reason for peoples absolute certainty of Froomes doping is the magical 3 week transformation from pack fodder/donkey/insert your own put down....to the best GT rider of a generation. Its the timing and sheer unprecedented nature of this transformation that leaves me so unsure, rather than convincing me as it seems to have done many others.

I think it can be taken as fact that Sky were about to offload Froome before his magical transformation, so this is what i dont understand; Why would Sky invest so much and take such a big risk on a rider they were looking to let go? Surely they wouldn't, so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

Again i find this hard to believe, the type of programmes being spoken about i would imagine would be both prohibitively expensive (ive read that an effective use of Aicar/GW5156 would be in the region of £1m at the time) for a rider of Froomes status at the time and extremely difficult to undertake without the knowledge of the full team/medical support. Im pretty sure old school EPO couldn't bring about this transformation alone.

The second theory, that he suddenly began using motors seems even less plausible to me unless it was done with the full knowledge of his team, mechanics, suppliers etc. Same question sticks in my mind, why on earth would sky take such a huge risk with a rider about to be let go?

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

I'm genuinely on the fence about this one, not a Froome/Sky fan, but also not a hater convinced beyond any doubt that he's cheating.

 

[miguelindurain111]

All class is our Dawg yet LRP was stupid enough to tell Aru not to attack Froome’s alleged mechanical...

“There were a few unsportsmanlike things that went on. It’s fair to say that there was an alliance amongst the stronger guys. That’s not uncommon in cycling. At the same time, my team-mates should have been there.”

“But when Dan Martin comes up to you and says that Chris is going around asking the other GC guys to gang up and attack Richie, that was quite a bitter pill to swallow,” Porte says.

https://rouleur.cc/editorial/richie-porte/

Or was it Martin playing Porte off against Froome?

For better or for worse, the incident clearly gives us further evidence of Froome being a doper :lol:

 

[pastronef]

All class is our Dawg yet LRP was stupid enough to tell Aru not to attack Froome’s alleged mechanical...

“There were a few unsportsmanlike things that went on. It’s fair to say that there was an alliance amongst the stronger guys. That’s not uncommon in cycling. At the same time, my team-mates should have been there.”

“But when Dan Martin comes up to you and says that Chris is going around asking the other GC guys to gang up and attack Richie, that was quite a bitter pill to swallow,” Porte says.

https://rouleur.cc/editorial/richie-porte/

Or was it Martin playing Porte off against Froome?

For better or for worse, the incident clearly gives us further evidence of Froome being a doper :lol:

eheheh. I thought I found this in the road racing forum, instead it´s discussed here?

 

[gillan1969]

Ive been a long time follower of this forum and this thread in particular, but posting for the first time to get an answer/opinions on one question that i've never really found an explanation to that satisfies my curiosity...

The most oft repeated reason for peoples absolute certainty of Froomes doping is the magical 3 week transformation from pack fodder/donkey/insert your own put down....to the best GT rider of a generation. Its the timing and sheer unprecedented nature of this transformation that leaves me so unsure, rather than convincing me as it seems to have done many others.

I think it can be taken as fact that Sky were about to offload Froome before his magical transformation, so this is what i dont understand; Why would Sky invest so much and take such a big risk on a rider they were looking to let go? Surely they wouldn't, so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

Again i find this hard to believe, the type of programmes being spoken about i would imagine would be both prohibitively expensive (ive read that an effective use of Aicar/GW5156 would be in the region of £1m at the time) for a rider of Froomes status at the time and extremely difficult to undertake without the knowledge of the full team/medical support. Im pretty sure old school EPO couldn't bring about this transformation alone.

The second theory, that he suddenly began using motors seems even less plausible to me unless it was done with the full knowledge of his team, mechanics, suppliers etc. Same question sticks in my mind, why on earth would sky take such a huge risk with a rider about to be let go?

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

I'm genuinely on the fence about this one, not a Froome/Sky fan, but also not a hater convinced beyond any doubt that he's cheating.

keep up...you missed the Froome/Moore/Swart memo

it's all about the fat......badzilla is sooooo 2014

 

[The Hitch]

Ive been a long time follower of this forum and this thread in particular, but posting for the first time to get an answer/opinions on one question that i've never really found an explanation to that satisfies my curiosity...

The most oft repeated reason for peoples absolute certainty of Froomes doping is the magical 3 week transformation from pack fodder/donkey/insert your own put down....to the best GT rider of a generation. Its the timing and sheer unprecedented nature of this transformation that leaves me so unsure, rather than convincing me as it seems to have done many others.

I think it can be taken as fact that Sky were about to offload Froome before his magical transformation, so this is what i dont understand; Why would Sky invest so much and take such a big risk on a rider they were looking to let go? Surely they wouldn't, so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

Again i find this hard to believe, the type of programmes being spoken about i would imagine would be both prohibitively expensive (ive read that an effective use of Aicar/GW5156 would be in the region of £1m at the time) for a rider of Froomes status at the time and extremely difficult to undertake without the knowledge of the full team/medical support. Im pretty sure old school EPO couldn't bring about this transformation alone.

The second theory, that he suddenly began using motors seems even less plausible to me unless it was done with the full knowledge of his team, mechanics, suppliers etc. Same question sticks in my mind, why on earth would sky take such a huge risk with a rider about to be let go?

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

I'm genuinely on the fence about this one, not a Froome/Sky fan, but also not a hater convinced beyond any doubt that he's cheating.

The main reason people believe Froome is doping is because in a sport where it has been proven a hundred times over that cheating is the main variable for winning, and that cheating is the ONLY way anyone can get close to riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials, Froomey has been riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials for 6 years now.

He has done so while he and his team have lied about absolutely every little thing.

The things you mention about his ridiculous transformation, the fact that he lied about Bilharzia and that Bilharzia doesn't explain his earlier struggles (like how in 2008 before he had Bilharzia he finished the Tour several hours behind his contemporaries Nibali and Schleck) only add to the certainty

In almost no other situation in the world would someone be given this much trust considering the situation?

Imagine for example a President of a 3rd world country was on trial for diverting funds to his own bank accounts. The previous 10 presidents going back 40 years had all been found to have done the same. Many of his cabinet had over the last few years also been found guilty of embezzlement. The President had lied on their behalf as well and only distanced himself when they were found guilty. The President is also living a lavish lifestyle in a mansion that far exceeds his recorded earnings and has no explanation for how he paid for it. Whenever he is asked about how he pays for his lifestyle he bans the person from the country.

BUT, no money trail has been discovered and no witnesses have come forward to tie the President to the corruption.

Do you trust that guy? Do you present it as a 50 50 situation?

 

[brownbobby]

Ive been a long time follower of this forum and this thread in particular, but posting for the first time to get an answer/opinions on one question that i've never really found an explanation to that satisfies my curiosity...

The most oft repeated reason for peoples absolute certainty of Froomes doping is the magical 3 week transformation from pack fodder/donkey/insert your own put down....to the best GT rider of a generation. Its the timing and sheer unprecedented nature of this transformation that leaves me so unsure, rather than convincing me as it seems to have done many others.

I think it can be taken as fact that Sky were about to offload Froome before his magical transformation, so this is what i dont understand; Why would Sky invest so much and take such a big risk on a rider they were looking to let go? Surely they wouldn't, so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

Again i find this hard to believe, the type of programmes being spoken about i would imagine would be both prohibitively expensive (ive read that an effective use of Aicar/GW5156 would be in the region of £1m at the time) for a rider of Froomes status at the time and extremely difficult to undertake without the knowledge of the full team/medical support. Im pretty sure old school EPO couldn't bring about this transformation alone.

The second theory, that he suddenly began using motors seems even less plausible to me unless it was done with the full knowledge of his team, mechanics, suppliers etc. Same question sticks in my mind, why on earth would sky take such a huge risk with a rider about to be let go?

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

I'm genuinely on the fence about this one, not a Froome/Sky fan, but also not a hater convinced beyond any doubt that he's cheating.

The main reason people believe Froome is doping is because in a sport where it has been proven a hundred times over that cheating is the main variable for winning, and that cheating is the ONLY way anyone can get close to riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials, Froomey has been riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials for 6 years now.

He has done so while he and his team have lied about absolutely every little thing.

The things you mention about his ridiculous transformation, the fact that he lied about Bilharzia and that Bilharzia doesn't explain his earlier struggles (like how in 2008 before he had Bilharzia he finished the Tour several hours behind his contemporaries Nibali and Schleck) only add to the certainty

In almost no other situation in the world would someone be given this much trust considering the situation?

Imagine for example a President of a 3rd world country was on trial for diverting funds to his own bank accounts. The previous 10 presidents going back 40 years had all been found to have done the same. Many of his cabinet had over the last few years also been found guilty of embezzlement. The President had lied on their behalf as well and only distanced himself when they were found guilty. The President is also living a lavish lifestyle in a mansion that far exceeds his recorded earnings and has no explanation for how he paid for it. Whenever he is asked about how he pays for his lifestyle he bans the person from the country.

BUT, no money trail has been discovered and no witnesses have come forward to tie the President to the corruption.

Do you trust that guy? Do you present it as a 50 50 situation?

I get all that, of course i do...at no point in my post did i even infer that i thought Froome was clean because there's no hard proof, witnesses coming forward etc. I'm not that naive! But the above reply merely repeats what has been said many many times before, without giving any kind of response to the specific questions i asked which are the basis of my ongoing uncertainty on this topic.

To answer your question directly, no i dont i see it a 50/50 situation...if i was forced to bet my house on one option or the other i would be leaning towards likely doping, but i'm far from being 100% as many posters on here are.

Nothing in the above replies gives any kind of response to the specific questions i asked which are the basis of my ongoing uncertainty

 

[deeno1975]

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

How would you account for him having such poor results "pre bilharzia". Surely if he had the pedigree of a multiple tour champion he should have had some decent results through his earlier career (Atomic Jock race aside).

Further note, that with their interview with Kimmage, Michelle Cound said that the actually wasn't in the advanced stages of the disease. Also the disease does not affect people who are asmatic.

 

[brownbobby]

'Further note, that with their interview with Kimmage, Michelle Cound said that the actually wasn't in the advanced stages of the disease. Also the disease does not affect people who are asthmatic.'

I have zero medical knowledge or training, but i wouldn't imagine any disease has to be in the advanced 'stages' before having any effect on the body. In fact i'd guess the opposite to be true, more subtle effects would begin before the more serious ones present themselves allowing diagnosis and therefore treatment to become obvious.

Re the asthma link, again i have no knowledge on the subject but a quick google search suggests this is purely medical hypothesis being quoted in studies looking at treatments for Asthma. Far from conclusive.

I'm not saying that i completely buy the Bilharzia story, just that i have similar levels of doubt/uncertainty over the other suggested reasons for the transformation.

I really didn't intend to reignite the whole debate about the weight of circumstantial evidence v hard proof. For every bit of 'evidence' posted as 'proof' there's a counter argument. Only if/when hard proof (failed tests, reliable witness testimony, confession!) comes about will this argument be put to bed.

I was simply posting to get thoughts/answers on the specific queries i raised about the magical transformation window and who might have been involved. Purely to allow me to continue forming my own conclusions and opinions, whilst respecting those of others.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

How would you account for him having such poor results "pre bilharzia". Surely if he had the pedigree of a multiple tour champion he should have had some decent results through his earlier career (Atomic Jock race aside).

Further note, that with their interview with Kimmage, Michelle Cound said that the actually wasn't in the advanced stages of the disease. Also the disease does not affect people who are asmatic.

Well, not exactly. If you look up the pathology of the disease, like I did, you'll find that Bilharzia is nothing like Froome described and had no possibility of affecting his performance in a way that is consistent with his transformation.

Bilharzia goes through various stages of its life cycle and they are very different. The cycle begins as an egg. When the egg hatches, the worm infects a certain type of snail where it grows to maturity and enters the water. The worm then enters the human body where it munches on your blood and deposits eggs where they can pass into the intestine or bladder. The eggs are then eliminated in human waste and the cycle begins again.

Aha! you say. The parasite eats blood cells. Yeah, but not many and not for long. The worms are only in the body to mate and lay eggs before they die. And since the egss can't hatch inside the body, there's absolutely no chance of a chronic problem involving hematocrit. The chronic problems all originate from the eggs themselves. They can cause fibrosis, granulomas and scarring in the tissue they're embedded in. In reality, the disease is only chronic in poor, rural areas where people are likely to come in frequent contact with infected waters and are unlikely to be treated until the symptoms are severe.

So we know for a fact that Schistosomiasis (Bilharzia) is not possible as an explanation for Froome's transformation.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/schistosomiasis/index.html

John Swanson

 

[The Hitch]

Ive been a long time follower of this forum and this thread in particular, but posting for the first time to get an answer/opinions on one question that i've never really found an explanation to that satisfies my curiosity...

The most oft repeated reason for peoples absolute certainty of Froomes doping is the magical 3 week transformation from pack fodder/donkey/insert your own put down....to the best GT rider of a generation. Its the timing and sheer unprecedented nature of this transformation that leaves me so unsure, rather than convincing me as it seems to have done many others.

I think it can be taken as fact that Sky were about to offload Froome before his magical transformation, so this is what i dont understand; Why would Sky invest so much and take such a big risk on a rider they were looking to let go? Surely they wouldn't, so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

Again i find this hard to believe, the type of programmes being spoken about i would imagine would be both prohibitively expensive (ive read that an effective use of Aicar/GW5156 would be in the region of £1m at the time) for a rider of Froomes status at the time and extremely difficult to undertake without the knowledge of the full team/medical support. Im pretty sure old school EPO couldn't bring about this transformation alone.

The second theory, that he suddenly began using motors seems even less plausible to me unless it was done with the full knowledge of his team, mechanics, suppliers etc. Same question sticks in my mind, why on earth would sky take such a huge risk with a rider about to be let go?

Theres a third theory, that he had a tropical disesase which, catastrophically for an endurance athlete, destroyed red blood cells and held him back from reaching his full potential, and it was finally getting on top of this condition that began the transformation. Again i agree that this seems to have been very conveniently talked about only after the transformation, but the possibility seems just as plausible as the other 2 to me.

I'm genuinely on the fence about this one, not a Froome/Sky fan, but also not a hater convinced beyond any doubt that he's cheating.

The main reason people believe Froome is doping is because in a sport where it has been proven a hundred times over that cheating is the main variable for winning, and that cheating is the ONLY way anyone can get close to riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials, Froomey has been riding Lance Armstrong speed up climbs and time trials for 6 years now.

He has done so while he and his team have lied about absolutely every little thing.

The things you mention about his ridiculous transformation, the fact that he lied about Bilharzia and that Bilharzia doesn't explain his earlier struggles (like how in 2008 before he had Bilharzia he finished the Tour several hours behind his contemporaries Nibali and Schleck) only add to the certainty

In almost no other situation in the world would someone be given this much trust considering the situation?

Imagine for example a President of a 3rd world country was on trial for diverting funds to his own bank accounts. The previous 10 presidents going back 40 years had all been found to have done the same. Many of his cabinet had over the last few years also been found guilty of embezzlement. The President had lied on their behalf as well and only distanced himself when they were found guilty. The President is also living a lavish lifestyle in a mansion that far exceeds his recorded earnings and has no explanation for how he paid for it. Whenever he is asked about how he pays for his lifestyle he bans the person from the country.

BUT, no money trail has been discovered and no witnesses have come forward to tie the President to the corruption.

Do you trust that guy? Do you present it as a 50 50 situation?

I get all that, of course i do...at no point in my post did i even infer that i thought Froome was clean because there's no hard proof, witnesses coming forward etc. I'm not that naive! But the above reply merely repeats what has been said many many times before, without giving any kind of response to the specific questions i asked which are the basis of my ongoing uncertainty on this topic.

To answer your question directly, no i dont i see it a 50/50 situation...if i was forced to bet my house on one option or the other i would be leaning towards likely doping, but i'm far from being 100% as many posters on here are.

Nothing in the above replies gives any kind of response to the specific questions i asked which are the basis of my ongoing uncertainty

Whats the definition of "far" in "far from 100%".

Because anyone under 95% probably simply hasn't been following the story for much time