Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[ScienceIsCool]

'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.

There is no advanced stages. It isn't even a disease. It's a parasitic infection. It completes only one stage of its life cycle in the human body. It could not in any way have impacted Froome in the manner he suggested. Interestingly, he no longer brings it up...

John Swanson

 

[brownbobby]

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

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

I'd say well below 95% but significantly above 50%. It isn't a fixed constant either, it constantly moves around depending on what ive been reading/seeing in any particular period. Open minds are a great thing

I am undeniably a newbie to this forum, but i've been following the story for a long time, from the beginning you could say. Which i guess just goes to underline the 'fact' that your 'opinion' is just that, an opinion, no matter how well informed or researched you believe it to be. Its human nature that we can all be presented with exactly the same set of details and information yet still reach different conclusions, hence the reason we're all entitled to an opinion and i'm not here to argue with anyone about theirs.

To John Swanson...thanks for the link, interesting reading which today pushes my percentages further towards 90%, but still not 95

 

[thehog]

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

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

I'd say well below 95% but significantly above 50%. It isn't a fixed constant either, it constantly moves around depending on what ive been reading/seeing in any particular period. Open minds are a great thing

I am undeniably a newbie to this forum, but i've been following the story for a long time, from the beginning you could say. Which i guess just goes to underline the 'fact' that your 'opinion' is just that, an opinion, no matter how well informed or researched you believe it to be. Its human nature that we can all be presented with exactly the same set of details and information yet still reach different conclusions, hence the reason we're all entitled to an opinion and i'm not here to argue with anyone about theirs.

To John Swanson...thanks for the link, interesting reading which today pushes my percentages further towards 90%, but still not 95

Long time lurker, first time poster? Uh huh. It’s clear you are doing one thing. Probably try not to be so obvious

 

[brownbobby]

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

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

I'd say well below 95% but significantly above 50%. It isn't a fixed constant either, it constantly moves around depending on what ive been reading/seeing in any particular period. Open minds are a great thing

I am undeniably a newbie to this forum, but i've been following the story for a long time, from the beginning you could say. Which i guess just goes to underline the 'fact' that your 'opinion' is just that, an opinion, no matter how well informed or researched you believe it to be. Its human nature that we can all be presented with exactly the same set of details and information yet still reach different conclusions, hence the reason we're all entitled to an opinion and i'm not here to argue with anyone about theirs.

To John Swanson...thanks for the link, interesting reading which today pushes my percentages further towards 90%, but still not 95

Long time lurker, first time poster? Uh huh. It’s clear you are doing one thing. Probably try not to be so obvious

Long time lurker, first time poster? Guilty as charged.

As for the rest, sorry, you'll have to enlighten me as to what the one thing i'm doing is.

I thought this was an open forum which, subject to acceptance by the moderators, was open to people joining the debate.

I'm pushing no agenda here but simply have lingering uncertainties over this whole topic and thought id join in rather than lurking to try and further inform my opinions.

If this is a closed shop to anyone who doesn't accept without question the opinions of more long standing members then i'll apologise and go back to lurking.

Actually i wont apologise, but i think you get my drift...

 

[Irondan]

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

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

I'd say well below 95% but significantly above 50%. It isn't a fixed constant either, it constantly moves around depending on what ive been reading/seeing in any particular period. Open minds are a great thing

I am undeniably a newbie to this forum, but i've been following the story for a long time, from the beginning you could say. Which i guess just goes to underline the 'fact' that your 'opinion' is just that, an opinion, no matter how well informed or researched you believe it to be. Its human nature that we can all be presented with exactly the same set of details and information yet still reach different conclusions, hence the reason we're all entitled to an opinion and i'm not here to argue with anyone about theirs.

To John Swanson...thanks for the link, interesting reading which today pushes my percentages further towards 90%, but still not 95

Long time lurker, first time poster? Uh huh. It’s clear you are doing one thing. Probably try not to be so obvious

Long time lurker, first time poster? Guilty as charged.

As for the rest, sorry, you'll have to enlighten me as to what the one thing i'm doing is.

I thought this was an open forum which, subject to acceptance by the moderators, was open to people joining the debate.

I'm pushing no agenda here but simply have lingering uncertainties over this whole topic and thought id join in rather than lurking to try and further inform my opinions.

If this is a closed shop to anyone who doesn't accept without question the opinions of more long standing members then i'll apologise and go back to lurking.

Actually i wont apologise, but i think you get my drift...

The hog is saying that he thinks you're a sockpuppet because you must remind him of someone that has been permabanned, which he knows is against forum rules.

This is not a "closed shop", we welcome all new members.

Please ignore his overtones and post on the thread topic, you don't have to convince anyone that you belong here or not.

 

[bigcog]

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

Given what it says on this page:

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

How do you come to that conclusion ? I would have thought symptoms like would impact a pro cyclist performance.

 

[Valv.Piti]

It isn't a closed shop and it shouldn't be. Your opinions are well informed and your posts are balanced. Thing is the consensus around here is that Froome is 100% doping and while it is very likely he is, given history and all the information we have put together, one simply can't be 100%. At least not in my opinion. Your points about what went on between, say summer 2011 and Vuelta 2011 stand, its hard to believe Sky invested in him and also that he wen't solo on a very pricey programme when he didn't earn much.

And I think Hog think you are a former poster on the forum, hence the obvious-comment.

 

[The Hitch]

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

Given what it says on this page:

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

How do you come to that conclusion ? I would have thought symptoms like would impact a pro cyclist performance.

But can they retroactively impact a cyclists performances. To the point that years before he gets the disease, its impacting his performance?

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

It isn't a closed shop and it shouldn't be. Your opinions are well informed and your posts are balanced. Thing is the consensus around here is that Froome is 100% doping and while it is very likely he is, given history and all the information we have put together, one simply can't be 100%. At least not in my opinion. Your points about what went on between, say summer 2011 and Vuelta 2011 stand, its hard to believe Sky invested in him and also that he wen't solo on a very pricey programme when he didn't earn much.

And I think Hog think you are a former poster on the forum, hence the obvious-comment.

Thanks (Iron Dan too) for making me feel a bit more welcome. Hopefully over time i can gain Hog's acceptance that i'm not who he thinks i am, whoever that may be!

 

[Lyon]

so do we assume that Froome went freelance with the most successful doping programme ever undertaken in such a short space of time?

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.

The last American grand tour winner want to have a word with you.

 

[Electress]

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.

Yours are legitimate questions regarding the nature of any programme and how it might have worked. But you seem to be starting from the principle that any team were either clean or all on the same programme. I don't. I assume that any team invests its money and takes the risks only where they think there is most need and potential. Hence a lowly dom. isn't going to be on much, if their role is mere pack fodder.

Would such a dom., who perhaps knows what a full programme might be, and that they aren't on it, and currently at risk of losing their job, be prepared to freelance and supplement whatever they were on with a whole kitchen sink of dope to demonstrate to management that they are worth keeping on and investing in as a contender in future? Yeah, I think so. And a million quid sounds a bit too much for a short term pump up the volume programme.

But Hitch sums up my perspective. At this point, I simply do not understand how anyone believes they are trustworthy. They have demonstrably lied. They have lied about stupid little things. There has been a whole world of BS and terrible failures to even stick to or demonstrate they follow their own policies. Jiffygate alone should show even a person with a passing interest in the sport that they are about as trustworthy or credible as a Nigerian Prince claiming to give you a share of their inheritance if you'll just send your credit card details over the internet. This, to me, means the default has shifted not from one of innocence, but to one of guilt, and as time goes on, less and less challenges that perspective.

What have they done to which shows they are credible? Where have the showed that they have walked the talk and lived up to their claims ? Not much that springs to mine. Even where there might have been opportunities - Froome's tests, or reports (altitude natives) - those have turned into yet another trail of half truths, disappearances into the ether and dodgy faxes etc.

What on earth would make anyone believe in these guys when virtually everything they do appears so mendacious?

 

[bigcog]

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

Given what it says on this page:

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

How do you come to that conclusion ? I would have thought symptoms like would impact a pro cyclist performance.

But can they retroactively impact a cyclists performances. To the point that years before he gets the disease, its impacting his performance?

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen. Even then people have diseases that take years to get diagnosed, through either misdiagnosis or lack of action by some party or just by virtue of the nature of the disease and it's diagnostic markers.

 

[Parker]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Given what it says on this page:

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

How do you come to that conclusion ? I would have thought symptoms like would impact a pro cyclist performance.

Quote from that page: "
Common Symptoms

Most people have no symptoms when they are first infected. However, within days after becoming infected, they may develop a rash or itchy skin. Within 1-2 months of infection, symptoms may develop including fever, chills, cough, and muscle aches.
Chronic schistosomiasis

Without treatment, schistosomiasis can persist for years. Signs and symptoms of chronic schistosomiasis include: abdominal pain, enlarged liver, blood in the stool or blood in the urine, and problems passing urine. Chronic infection can also lead to increased risk of bladder cancer.

Rarely, eggs are found in the brain or spinal cord and can cause seizures, paralysis, or spinal cord inflammation."

I'm sorry, which of these symptoms did Froome have? An initial infection would have left him itchy and feeling like he had a cold. Gone in a similar amount of time too. Hardly enough to derail or postpone a cycling career!

I doubt he had symptoms of a chronic infection, either... We *definitely* would have heard about that!

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen. Even then people have diseases that take years to get diagnosed, through either misdiagnosis or lack of action by some party or just by virtue of the nature of the disease and it's diagnostic markers.

...are you really saying that a pro cyclist would go years with a bloated liver, stomach pains, and peeing blood before going to see a doctor? Whew!

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

That’s makes no sense. Why would it all be in order if he suffered from a debilitating parasitic blood disease?

 

[thehog]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen. Even then people have diseases that take years to get diagnosed, through either misdiagnosis or lack of action by some party or just by virtue of the nature of the disease and it's diagnostic markers.

...are you really saying that a pro cyclist would go years with a bloated liver, stomach pains, and peeing blood before going to see a doctor? Whew!

John Swanson

Along with his health being crucial to his employment prospects. But Froome never thought it would be a good idea to check why he was pissing blood, just thought it was as normal as zig zagging up a hill

 

[deviant]

John you know as well as anyone else that not everyone with an illness present with ALL the signs and symptoms, some people have heart attacks with chest pain and some don't...it's perfectly plausible that Froomes symptoms stopped at the fever, chills, muscle aches, itchy skin stage and didn't progress to passing blood, infected liver etc.
It's an explanation, whether anyone wants to believe it or not is up to them...it's plausible and no more 'out there' than people posting YouTube clips of cyclists in certain situations and claiming it's 'proof' of motor doping.

 

[Parker]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

That’s makes no sense. Why would it all be in order if he suffered from a debilitating parasitic blood disease?

By 'in order' I mean, he had had the illness that he claimed

 

[ScienceIsCool]

John you know as well as anyone else that not everyone with an illness present with ALL the signs and symptoms, some people have heart attacks with chest pain and some don't...it's perfectly plausible that Froomes symptoms stopped at the fever, chills, muscle aches, itchy skin stage and didn't progress to passing blood, infected liver etc.
It's an explanation, whether anyone wants to believe it or not is up to them...it's plausible and no more 'out there' than people posting YouTube clips of cyclists in certain situations and claiming it's 'proof' of motor doping.

That, my friend, is the entire point. It's clearly absurd that Froome was a pro cyclist with chronic Schistosomiasis. It's also clear that he did have the parasite at some time, and was diagnose based on the common symptoms or it was picked up as part of another screening.

But what's most glaring and obvious of all is that he could not have had any of the chronic symptoms and been a pro cyclist. He also could not have had his career delayed or impeded by a normal course of the disease. So the idea that Bilharzia was the root of his transformation is ridiculous.

It'd be a bit like saying alcohol was the cause. A hangover doesn't derail your cycling career, and alcoholism prevents you from being a pro cyclist altogether. And BTW, none of the symptoms of either would have had the effect Froome claims.

John Swanson

 

[thehog]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

That’s makes no sense. Why would it all be in order if he suffered from a debilitating parasitic blood disease?

By 'in order' I mean, he had had the illness that he claimed

Interesting as Froome said he didn’t know he had it. Said it was a UCI blood test that picked it up years after the fact.

Really wish the bots would get their stories lined up...

 

[Parker]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

That’s makes no sense. Why would it all be in order if he suffered from a debilitating parasitic blood disease?

By 'in order' I mean, he had had the illness that he claimed

Interesting as Froome said he didn’t know he had it. Said it was a UCI blood test that picked it up years after the fact.

Really wish the bots would get their stories lined up...

What are you on about? Once it had been diagnosed he knew he had it.

 

[Merckx index]

We’ve discussed all of this extensively before, of course. Schisto can affect HT, not by the worms eating the cells (they don’t eat enough to make a significant impact) but by antigens (proteins) released from the eggs which react with hemoglobin on red cells, reducing their oxygen-carrying capacity. If the damage is significant, it should noticeably affect Hb without affecting HT, which ought to result in passport anomalies; yet there is no indication that Froome ever had this symptom revealed in passport tests. Back in 2013 Froome/Sky let Grappe look at his passport data going back to I think 2011, and the researcher claimed everything was fine.

Also, a few years ago I posted a timeline (6/28/14 upthread) of Froome’s praziquantel treatments for the disease, five of them documented. Beyond the fact that needing this many treatments seems to be virtually unprecedented (one or at most two generally suffice; one authority was quoted as saying “I can’t believe he would still be infected after four treatments”), the timing of the treatments doesn’t correlate particularly well with his race results. E.g., his second treatment was in June 2011. Apparently it didn’t help in Poland, but then a few weeks later he has his breakout in the Vuelta. Yet that second treatment apparently didn’t solve the problem, because he returned for a third treatment in November 2011. And of course, as mentioned above, he was not the Froome we know now earlier in his career at a time when he didn’t have the disease.

The question of how he could have transformed to such a large degree in such a short length of time is a good one. As far as the magnitude of the change, I wouldn’t dismiss good old-fashioned blood doping. Riders respond differently to transfusions and/or EPO. If Froome had actually been squeaky clean prior to the 2011 Vuelta, blood manipulation could certainly have a significant effect on his performance.

But there are conceptual/logistical problems here. He presumably didn’t have the resources to separate cells from plasma and freeze them. He would most likely have to go low tech, and make regular withdrawals/transfusions throughout the season. That’s fine if you’re targeting a particular big race, but in his position, he wouldn’t have known what to target. He might have targeted the TDF, e.g., but then he didn’t make the team. When he got sent to Poland, you might think he would use any blood bags he had available, since at that time that seemed like his last chance to impress Sky; he didn’t know he was going to be in the Vuelta. But if he did, they didn’t help much, and then he would have nothing for the Vuelta.

That leaves EPO. He could acquire that at any time, of course, and use it at any time. But he would have to be careful about doses. Achieving a large transformation might not be impossible with small doses, but probably not very likely. Also, again, if he were going to do that, why wouldn’t he use it in Poland? Maybe he did use a little, and not seeing much of an effect, decided, upon making the Vuelta team, to try more?

I freely admit that trying to explain how doping could explain the transformation is very difficult. However, that is not an argument in favor of not doping. If it’s hard to explain with doping, it’s even harder to explain without it.

 

[rick james]

The only way to know with some certainty would be to see his medical records and that ain't going to happen.

He gave a journalist called Nick Harris full access to all his records and documentation after he wrote an article questioning him. Harris has said everything was in order.

That’s makes no sense. Why would it all be in order if he suffered from a debilitating parasitic blood disease?

By 'in order' I mean, he had had the illness that he claimed

Interesting as Froome said he didn’t know he had it. Said it was a UCI blood test that picked it up years after the fact.

Really wish the bots would get their stories lined up...

you sure about that?

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

We’ve discussed all of this extensively before, of course. Schisto can affect HT, not by the worms eating the cells (they don’t eat enough to make a significant impact) but by antigens (proteins) released from the eggs which react with hemoglobin on red cells, reducing their oxygen-carrying capacity. If the damage is significant, it should noticeably affect Hb without affecting HT, which ought to result in passport anomalies; yet there is no indication that Froome ever had this symptom revealed in passport tests. Back in 2013 Froome/Sky let Grappe look at his passport data going back to I think 2011, and the researcher claimed everything was fine.

Also, a few years ago I posted a timeline (6/28/14 upthread) of Froome’s praziquantel treatments for the disease, five of them documented. Beyond the fact that needing this many treatments seems to be virtually unprecedented (one or at most two generally suffice; one authority was quoted as saying “I can’t believe he would still be infected after four treatments”), the timing of the treatments doesn’t correlate particularly well with his race results. E.g., his second treatment was in June 2011. Apparently it didn’t help in Poland, but then a few weeks later he has his breakout in the Vuelta. Yet that second treatment apparently didn’t solve the problem, because he returned for a third treatment in November 2011. And of course, as mentioned above, he was not the Froome we know now earlier in his career at a time when he didn’t have the disease.

The question of how he could have transformed to such a large degree in such a short length of time is a good one. As far as the magnitude of the change, I wouldn’t dismiss good old-fashioned blood doping. Riders respond differently to transfusions and/or EPO. If Froome had actually been squeaky clean prior to the 2011 Vuelta, blood manipulation could certainly have a significant effect on his performance.

But there are conceptual/logistical problems here. He presumably didn’t have the resources to separate cells from plasma and freeze them. He would most likely have to go low tech, and make regular withdrawals/transfusions throughout the season. That’s fine if you’re targeting a particular big race, but in his position, he wouldn’t have known what to target. He might have targeted the TDF, e.g., but then he didn’t make the team. When he got sent to Poland, you might think he would use any blood bags he had available, since at that time that seemed like his last chance to impress Sky; he didn’t know he was going to be in the Vuelta. But if he did, they didn’t help much, and then he would have nothing for the Vuelta.

That leaves EPO. He could acquire that at any time, of course, and use it at any time. But he would have to be careful about doses. Achieving a large transformation might not be impossible with small doses, but probably not very likely. Also, again, if he were going to do that, why wouldn’t he use it in Poland? Maybe he did use a little, and not seeing much of an effect, decided, upon making the Vuelta team, to try more?

I freely admit that trying to explain how doping could explain the transformation is very difficult. However, that is not an argument in favor of not doping. If it’s hard to explain with doping, it’s even harder to explain without it.

Just have to say it Mercx Index....A very very insightful post. I never thought of it the way you just described. Very interesting and fascinating.
How about using his brothers blood? Same blood type maybe?