Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

Naah Sky knew that bertie won't be able even podium in le Tour after his ban.

No, they didn't know. They know now though... Back then, after Contador's Vuelta (and Purito's and Valverde's), they need to make sure the win is theirs. Hence the motors came...

Naah bertie was crap during the whole year 2013, his only victory was a stage in the Tour de San Luis in January. Moreover, Sky knew that bertie wouldn't be bold enough to use his pre-ban motors, so no need to use motors against him.

Contador was entrenched in second place at the Tour until he blew himself up on the Alpe d'Huez stage. He was Froome's closest challenger until he decided that only the win would do

Which TDF you talking about?

I don't remember Contador ever being close to Froome

 

[42x16ss]

Naah Sky knew that bertie won't be able even podium in le Tour after his ban.

No, they didn't know. They know now though... Back then, after Contador's Vuelta (and Purito's and Valverde's), they need to make sure the win is theirs. Hence the motors came...

Naah bertie was crap during the whole year 2013, his only victory was a stage in the Tour de San Luis in January. Moreover, Sky knew that bertie wouldn't be bold enough to use his pre-ban motors, so no need to use motors against him.

Contador was entrenched in second place at the Tour until he blew himself up on the Alpe d'Huez stage. He was Froome's closest challenger until he decided that only the win would do

Which TDF you talking about?

I don't remember Contador ever being close to Froome

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

 

[Teddy Boom]

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

Ya, but no. Check wikipedia for the GC top 10 at the end of stages 12-2. Contador was miles back, but still 2nd, at the end of Stage 19. He had a bad day on Stage 20, and fell off the podium.

 

[silvergrenade]

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

Ya, but no. Check wikipedia for the GC top 10 at the end of stages 12-2. Contador was miles back, but still 2nd, at the end of Stage 19. He had a bad day on Stage 20, and fell off the podium.

If I recall correctly it was this stage where he attacked and then stopped for a bike change? :lol:
Surprisingly he lost a lot of time that day. Wonder why..

 

[dacooley]

Naah Sky knew that bertie won't be able even podium in le Tour after his ban.

No, they didn't know. They know now though... Back then, after Contador's Vuelta (and Purito's and Valverde's), they need to make sure the win is theirs. Hence the motors came...

as course of history showed the vuelta 2012 had ended up in froome's favour inspite of him finishing only 4th. the dawg got stronger mentaly, gained the experience of second consecutive grand tour. straight after that the vuelta in middleseason, bertie for the time being remained the biggest tour favourite, but froome was very close. both rodriguez and valvelde didn't look like big threat, one could hardly assume they would be able to challenge AC and CF on a balanced route. Each of them performed at the vuelta at a disadvantage (coming back from the suspension and riding with the tour in the legs), still I doubt the level Contador delivered might have frightened froome so much.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Naah Sky knew that bertie won't be able even podium in le Tour after his ban.

No, they didn't know. They know now though... Back then, after Contador's Vuelta (and Purito's and Valverde's), they need to make sure the win is theirs. Hence the motors came...

Naah bertie was crap during the whole year 2013, his only victory was a stage in the Tour de San Luis in January. Moreover, Sky knew that bertie wouldn't be bold enough to use his pre-ban motors, so no need to use motors against him.

Contador was entrenched in second place at the Tour until he blew himself up on the Alpe d'Huez stage. He was Froome's closest challenger until he decided that only the win would do

Which TDF you talking about?

I don't remember Contador ever being close to Froome

"Closest challenger" =/= "being close to"
C'mon Hitch...

 

[LaFlorecita]

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

Ya, but no. Check wikipedia for the GC top 10 at the end of stages 12-2. Contador was miles back, but still 2nd, at the end of Stage 19. He had a bad day on Stage 20, and fell off the podium.

If I recall correctly it was this stage where he attacked and then stopped for a bike change? :lol:
Surprisingly he lost a lot of time that day. Wonder why..

Yes while some have to fear bike checks others needn't worry as long as the UCI has their back

 

[LaFlorecita]

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

Ya, but no. Check wikipedia for the GC top 10 at the end of stages 12-2. Contador was miles back, but still 2nd, at the end of Stage 19. He had a bad day on Stage 20, and fell off the podium.

Well the original claim isn't entirely wrong. Contador was 2nd by a decent margin until he lost a lot of time on stage 18 = Alpe d'Huez. He was still 2nd after that but it was obvious he wasn't going to keep it.

 

[42x16ss]

In 2013 Contador was never close to Froome (he was over 4 minutes behind going into stage 18) but obviously ahead of everyone else. Contador looked like he had 2nd decided as well until he overreached at AdH.

Ya, but no. Check wikipedia for the GC top 10 at the end of stages 12-2. Contador was miles back, but still 2nd, at the end of Stage 19. He had a bad day on Stage 20, and fell off the podium.

Stage 18 was where the cracks really started to show though. Stage 20 was when Rodriguez and Quintana finally realised they can only gain time if they attack.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Palmarès

2017
Tour de France general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana points classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana combined classification 1st
UCI Road World Championships, Bergen (Norway) Time trial Bronze

2016
Olympic Games, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Time trial Bronze
Tour de France general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana general classification 2nd

2015
Tour de France general classification 1st
Tour de France mountains classification 1st
Criterium du Dauphine overall 1st
Criterium du Dauphine mountains classification 2nd
Criterium du Dauphine points classification 3rd
Criterium du Dauphine, (France) overall 1st
Tour de France general classification 1st
UCI Road World Championships, Florence (Italy) team time-trial Bronze

2012
Olympic Games, London (UK) time trial Bronze
Tour de France overall 2nd

2011
Vuelta a Espana overall 2nd

Read more at https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/gbcyclingteam/new/bio/Chris_Froome#iBUqIYCGUQHq6sl3.99

Froome's Palmares on the British Cycling website - too funny !

 

[gillan1969]

Palmarès

2017
Tour de France general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana points classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana combined classification 1st
UCI Road World Championships, Bergen (Norway) Time trial Bronze

2016
Olympic Games, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) Time trial Bronze
Tour de France general classification 1st
Vuelta a Espana general classification 2nd

2015
Tour de France general classification 1st
Tour de France mountains classification 1st
Criterium du Dauphine overall 1st
Criterium du Dauphine mountains classification 2nd
Criterium du Dauphine points classification 3rd
Criterium du Dauphine, (France) overall 1st
Tour de France general classification 1st
UCI Road World Championships, Florence (Italy) team time-trial Bronze

2012
Olympic Games, London (UK) time trial Bronze
Tour de France overall 2nd

2011
Vuelta a Espana overall 2nd

Read more at https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/gbcyclingteam/new/bio/Chris_Froome#iBUqIYCGUQHq6sl3.99

Froome's Palmares on the British Cycling website - too funny !

so how do we explain the transformation? first badzilla (rumbled) then the fat (rumbled) and now......what transformation? first class

 

[Nobody73]

There is no doubt in my mind since I started watching and training cycling 17 years ago that PEDs are a part of the sport. I was involved in another sport that had heavy use of steroids. However, an illness/parasite can create the inconsistencies he had early in his pro career on SKY. the treatment and losing 20 pounds really did make a difference.

What these guys are using now, who knows. SKY certainly has the connections and money to be ahead of doping controls but in my mind, if everyone is doped then the strongest guy still wins. Old argument but I prefer to enjoy the racing and not obsess over whether a guy is clean or not.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

removed by mods for violating forum rules

indeed it is so.........

hypothesis A - badzilla - Moore writes piece to explain why froome used to suck but is now, not just the best amongst his peers, but probably of all time - Swart (sport scientist - real not psuedo ) doesn't even mention badzilla as being the likely culprit (not sure he even mentioned its all)...he ain't faceless - he has a name and is paid

hypothesis B - fat - very simple and very measurable and very pertinent to cycling since...well, people started racing....Swart's very simple hypothesis (based on figures in the 'fax') can scientifically conclude it was the fat that did it...Sthey are not faceless and also have names

the gap - the years between A and B - SDB and Froome never once uttered the words fat whan asked about the transformation...froome went solely down the badzilla road - and yet sky had all the weight and power data - all the docs and all the sports scientists and coaches...and not one of them thought to explain it away by weight/fat.....

for those of enquiring minds...do you not think it strange that each party, for each explanation never considered the other in trying to explain what is quite a remarkable phenomenon?

All these people are of course not faceless...its their petard on which froome is hoisted.....not my faceless one....

and now...the palmares...and whilst not quite the cancer in Armstrong, here we have a rider so poor at his job he was about to be sacked and being offered around with his peers telling their team managers to leave alone....who in fact turns out to be possibly (by the time he's finished) the best the cycling world has ever seen....what a story...what a thing to celebrate...never give up on your dreams folks...you can succeed regardless of where you might find yourself....funnily enough we're not hearing that story.....because, as Cram so eloquently put it........

"New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

again, Cram ain't faceless...

 

[rick james]

You've written a lot but not really said much

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

You've written a lot but not really said much

if you'd like it simpler.....

Swart said it wasn't badzilla

SDB said it wasn't fat

BC want to forget

there you go...

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Removed by mods for violating forum rules

indeed it is so.........

hypothesis A - badzilla - Moore writes piece to explain why froome used to suck but is now, not just the best amongst his peers, but probably of all time - Swart (sport scientist - real not psuedo ) doesn't even mention badzilla as being the likely culprit (not sure he even mentioned its all)...he ain't faceless - he has a name and is paid

hypothesis B - fat - very simple and very measurable and very pertinent to cycling since...well, people started racing....Swart's very simple hypothesis (based on figures in the 'fax') can scientifically conclude it was the fat that did it...Sthey are not faceless and also have names

the gap - the years between A and B - SDB and Froome never once uttered the words fat whan asked about the transformation...froome went solely down the badzilla road - and yet sky had all the weight and power data - all the docs and all the sports scientists and coaches...and not one of them thought to explain it away by weight/fat.....

for those of enquiring minds...do you not think it strange that each party, for each explanation never considered the other in trying to explain what is quite a remarkable phenomenon?

All these people are of course not faceless...its their petard on which froome is hoisted.....not my faceless one....

and now...the palmares...and whilst not quite the cancer in Armstrong, here we have a rider so poor at his job he was about to be sacked and being offered around with his peers telling their team managers to leave alone....who in fact turns out to be possibly (by the time he's finished) the best the cycling world has ever seen....what a story...what a thing to celebrate...never give up on your dreams folks...you can succeed regardless of where you might find yourself....funnily enough we're not hearing that story.....because, as Cram so eloquently put it........

"New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

again, Cram ain't faceless...

Very well said!

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

There is no doubt in my mind since I started watching and training cycling 17 years ago that PEDs are a part of the sport. I was involved in another sport that had heavy use of steroids. However, an illness/parasite can create the inconsistencies he had early in his pro career on SKY. the treatment and losing 20 pounds really did make a difference.

What these guys are using now, who knows. SKY certainly has the connections and money to be ahead of doping controls but in my mind, if everyone is doped then the strongest guy still wins. Old argument but I prefer to enjoy the racing and not obsess over whether a guy is clean or not.

his 'early' career was very consistent.......

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

You've written a lot but not really said much

if you'd like it simpler.....

Swart said it wasn't badzilla

SDB said it wasn't fat

BC want to forget

there you go...

Thats not quite correct though is it.....Swart didn't say 'it was' badzilla. SDB didn't say 'it was' fat.

There's a slight, but very important difference between that and saying 'it wasn't'.

 

[Robert5091]

Froome had the badzilla, hives and his asthma problem during the 2011 transformation so ....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

You've written a lot but not really said much

if you'd like it simpler.....

Swart said it wasn't badzilla

SDB said it wasn't fat

BC want to forget

there you go...

Thats not quite correct though is it.....Swart didn't say 'it was' badzilla. SDB didn't say 'it was' fat.

There's a slight, but very important difference between that and saying 'it wasn't'.

the longer version was not to rick james' satisfaction hence the paraphrase and hence the

and of course they do...by omission

the point is that there has been two main variables postulated as to the biggest transformation the sporting world has (probably) ever seen...pack fodder and about to be released/sacked turns into world's most dominant GT rider

Swart was asked to as to the difference between pre and post transformation Froome....we all know the very simple answer he gave (see Esquire - "He just lost the fat") and even when asked to elaborate* he never mentioned the B word... Now if you're a sports scientist (and African to boot) and badzilla had been a contributing factor, even minor, do you not think this scientist (not pseudo-scientist) would have referenced it? at all? So...by omission

*http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swart-defends-froomes-physiological-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

many people asked about the transformation in '11 and by SDB was saying the following in 2013......

Brailsford said it wasn’t until the bilharzia was diagnosed and treated that the real Froome could emerge.

“There was an inconsistency about him,” Brailsford said. “The question wasn’t why he was good, the question was why we’d only seeing glimpses. Why isn’t he like that all the time? When the illness was discovered, retrospectively, it made a lot of sense. There would be certain stages in the front group, you’d see these glimpses, but he couldn’t put it together with some consistency.”

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/news/froome-confirms-no-tue-still-treated-for-bilharzia-parasite_295548#fZYzhLFbw4ATrizm.99

So....this is 2013, 2 years post transformation and 4 years at SKY with all its docs and trainers and scientific approach...and despite the weight issue glaring them in the face,...despite the weight loss as identified by Swart we are offered the above....it was badzilla, so yes........by omission

detectives, when questioning suspects, normally start smelling rats due to the inconsistencies in stories......

as I say, those with enquiring minds...................................

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re: Re:

You've written a lot but not really said much

if you'd like it simpler.....

Swart said it wasn't badzilla

SDB said it wasn't fat

BC want to forget

there you go...

Thats not quite correct though is it.....Swart didn't say 'it was' badzilla. SDB didn't say 'it was' fat.

There's a slight, but very important difference between that and saying 'it wasn't'.

the longer version was not to rick james' satisfaction hence the paraphrase and hence the

and of course they do...by omission

the point is that there has been two main variables postulated as to the biggest transformation the sporting world has (probably) ever seen...pack fodder and about to be released/sacked turns into world's most dominant GT rider

Swart was asked to as to the difference between pre and post transformation Froome....we all know the very simple answer he gave (see Esquire - "He just lost the fat") and even when asked to elaborate* he never mentioned the B word... Now if you're a sports scientist (and African to boot) and badzilla had been a contributing factor, even minor, do you not think this scientist (not pseudo-scientist) would have referenced it? at all? So...by omission

*http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swart-defends-froomes-physiological-testing-more-data-to-be-released-in-2016/

many people asked about the transformation in '11 and by SDB was saying the following in 2013......

Brailsford said it wasn’t until the bilharzia was diagnosed and treated that the real Froome could emerge.

“There was an inconsistency about him,” Brailsford said. “The question wasn’t why he was good, the question was why we’d only seeing glimpses. Why isn’t he like that all the time? When the illness was discovered, retrospectively, it made a lot of sense. There would be certain stages in the front group, you’d see these glimpses, but he couldn’t put it together with some consistency.”

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2013/07/news/froome-confirms-no-tue-still-treated-for-bilharzia-parasite_295548#fZYzhLFbw4ATrizm.99

So....this is 2013, 2 years post transformation and 4 years at SKY with all its docs and trainers and scientific approach...and despite the weight issue glaring them in the face,...despite the weight loss as identified by Swart we are offered the above....it was badzilla, so yes........by omission

detectives, when questioning suspects, normally start smelling rats due to the inconsistencies in stories......

as I say, those with enquiring minds...................................

I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:

That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:

That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.

Man, this is soooo depressingly like the Lance and US Postal days (not a dig a you btw). I will repost probably for the 20th time, my medically trained South African sis in law, literally guffawed when I suggested Bilharzia was a problem for Froome. Literally guffawed, she doesn't know Froome from Adam. But her words, you get it, you take a pill or two and it's gone. And this is from personal experience with her friends who did get it. Only an idiot, her words would get it again from swimming in infected waters...but if you did, repeat treatment....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:

That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.

Man, this is soooo depressingly like the Lance and US Postal days (not a dig a you btw). I will repost probably for the 20th time, my medically trained South African sis in law, literally guffawed when I suggested Bilharzia was a problem for Froome. Literally guffawed, she doesn't know Froome from Adam. But her words, you get it, you take a pill or two and it's gone. And this is from personal experience with her friends who did get it. Only an idiot, her words would get it again from swimming in infected waters...but if you did, repeat treatment....

depressing indeed...a bit like the pharmacists/docs who guffawed at the treatment for Wiggos breathing (x3) just before his GTs

Presumably Swart knows this and didn't touch...he is after all a (real) scientist....

throw enough herrings up there and the befuddled get....eh...befuddled

PS you a traditionalist and still in clips and straps???...thought you might have the new bridge in your wee photo thing

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I think the statement was given in the context of physiological testing: based on the only available data points, the ones from 2007 and 2015, it's hard to draw any other conclusions.

On the other hand, who cares. All the top guys are very likely using PED's, so let's enjoy the show and let the best doper win! :lol:

That Sky claimed they left no stone unturned, Froome must have been tested umpteen times and that could've helped explain Froome's potential, but being held back by Bilharzia etc etc

But we got more lies rather than transparency.

Indeed...and if you read the subsequent interview the original quote is indeed based on the data points (themselves questionable - a pro at 17% fat ) however Swart goes on to explain the other variable which might be at play....and the B word gets no mention

and of course all the top guys are using PEDs but, as has been expressed far more eloquently than by me, its the BS from SKY and the two GT no-hopers that SKY have thrust upon that raises the hackles (well, that and the gangly, stem watching styleeee )