Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/22/chris-froome-tour-de-france

It was a bold prediction that Nilsen would eventually endorse. Froome missed the next three Tours because, undetected by European doctors, he was ill with bilharzia – a parasitic disease he had caught in Africa. His performances for his new team at Sky were so inconsistent that Froome seemed in danger of being axed. It was only when visiting Kenya that, before a routine UCI blood passport test, Froome asked the doctor to see if he could identify a cause of his mysterious exhaustion and sickness. The Kenyan blood tests proved that Froome was riddled with bilharzia.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...at-the-bug-for-second-at-Vuelta-a-Espana.html

But having battle tropical bug Bilharzia all year, he said: “Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.

"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.

I just love this consistency.

But, good to know the UCI found out in time.

 

[blackcat]

Hes suspicious alright, but he ain't about to dominate anything serious in this sport.

thnx for the link.

does not change my (confirmation bias?) but it was good to get a background on him

 

[Dazed and Confused]

thnx for the link.

does not change my (confirmation bias?) but it was good to get a background on him

so you think Peraud's transformation is more significant than Froome's?

 

[LaFlorecita]

The Dawg is simply hilarious. Really.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I understand why Froome saying those thing ****es you off, but... hypothetically imagine that there is a clean rider with a palmares like Froome's, wouldn't you expect that person to say or at least think exactly things like that?

This was one of my arguments back when I was still in denial about Alberto's doping. LOL.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The Dawg has gone mad.

The Dawg anti-doping Tour de France drinking bingo:

"Cycling has changed"

"My results show that you can win clean"

"It's sad I have to anwser these questions"

"Doping was a long time ago"

"We work the hardest"

"We have a scientific approach. Everyone is aware of our zero tolorance policy"

Those words will come back to haunt him one day.

Hoggie well said. I agree.

Can you tell me Hog, was Lance ever so full of ****? I wasn't following cycling back then.

He is so juiced up that he needs to go offensive not raising any alarms and doubts. Only problem is it works in the different direction. He looks even more shady with all this "i am winning because" and "no dopers is winning now".

If you gonna lie, lie big kind of.

Yes I agree. Always when riders talk about themselves being clean and cycling having changed and the dopers not winning anymore I get more suspicious.

How does rabies affect his passport values?

good one brother

 

[blackcat]

so you think Peraud's transformation is more significant than Froome's?

i think froome's development is unpeered. yes.

i have said alot about froome if you have read my history

 

[airstream]

The thread came from 'What I read' in 'What I want to read' a long ago.. The level of madness grows up so quickly, so I wouldn't be surprised if Froome will be accused say of princess Diana murder or something just for fun and continuation of thing cynical jeer.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

i think froome's development is unpeered. yes.

i have said alot about froome if you have read my history

well, I wouldn't wan't anybody to use my post history to judge anything I write today.

But seriously our friend Froomey is on a completely different scale compared to the "Froggy".

 

[spalco]

This was one of my arguments back when I was still in denial about Alberto's doping. LOL.

It's not so much a defense of Froome, but a criticism of (some of) the criticism against him.

It's true that it's not an especially strong argument, but the reason for that imo is that dopers simply aren't distinguishable from non-dopers by what they say publicly, or don't say.

 

[Ferminal]

so you think Peraud's transformation is more significant than Froome's?

Never trust ex-MTB'ers!

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Never trust ex-MTB'ers!

El Pollo flies.

Not disputing the MTB doping element, just the level of transformation.

 

[Ferminal]

Oh I agree, Peraud is almost normal to me.

 

[roundabout]

He has always been a competitive roadie. Right from his first months as pro or even as an amateur when he beat Chavanel to the TT title in 2009.

And 9th could have well been 15th with the huge number of people running into problems in the first 10 days of that Tour.

 

[thehog]

Hoggie well said. I agree.

Can you tell me Hog, was Lance ever so full of ****? I wasn't following cycling back then.



Yes I agree. Always when riders talk about themselves being clean and cycling having changed and the dopers not winning anymore I get more suspicious.



good one brother

Lance fought fire with fire. When asked about doping he'd shoot straight back. Often he'd throw back the question "Why would I dope? After everything I've been through?"

Problem with Lance's approach is that after a while it became a game to catch him out. The French journalists were always trying to find a way.

To be honest without UCI protection Lance would have gone down much earlier.

The Dawg is the anti-Lance. He takes the very soft approach. He says "I understand why you ask these questions". He acknowledges the journalist asking the question. Smart. You can tell after last year with Wiggins that the doping answers are pre-prepared.

Softly softly is the approach. It's hard to be angry with Froome. He's so nice! But he is totally ridiculous.

If only the journalists would ask questions about his TUEs (hint) they might get somewhere.

And if only Ashenden was a journalist! Then the top might be peeled off on what's really going on at Sky.

 

[martinvickers]

You are right to a large extent but look at it this way. If you regard the clinic more as a comedy stage for the likes of Hog to strut his stuff, you can just sit back and enjoy the show. If you want something more cerebral, you can enjoy The Hitch, who just makes stuff up...think of him like the story tellers of Jemaa L Fna. He's actually ok as long as he remembers that he's not really The Hitch. For more earthy entertainment, just look upon it as cyclists in the stocks being pelted by toothless, tomato weilding assailants in some medieval ritual.... "He's not the Tour de France winner, he's a very naughty boy".

It's only if you actually, seriously, would like to see the issue of doping being tackled, without all the irrational hatred of individual riders, that you'll get frustrated and upset. I hope this helps.

Yep, that's about it.

To be absolutely fair, there are a handful of people in the Clinic, on both sides, who actually care, and actually sometimes make sense.

But for very many, it's just an avenue to vent dislikes and likes, and pretend there's a moral basis to their whims - no more serious than football fans calling another teams star striker a 'diver' or midfielder 'a thug' and entirely ignoring their own miscreants. All the while knowing not a damn thing about football.

And hey, good luck to them, these are hard times, you get your amusement where you can.

I for one intend to enjoy the Froome and Berti threads thoroughly when Le Tour kicks off.

And I intend to broadly keep my actual anger about doping for an arena where it might actually do some good, and if possible for people who actually matter. Life passes much more easily when you accept such realities.

 

[Ripper]

so you think Peraud's transformation is more significant than Froome's?

I know you asked BC, but for me, I would reply "Peraud had a transformation?"

 

[Ripper]

Yea but santa was only a climbing domestique in 2010. His sudden improvement was so obvious to the peloton.

Froome is a different story, right peloton? I wonder why cause i don't see any difference.

I forget who, but someone had a pretty interesting analysis on this point. It was basically that Froome is really an unknown quality ... there's not much of a norm for him. Santa was such a known quantity for such a long time (Italian juniors, etc). Then he shows up, looks heavier, and is climbing at the pointy end. It was just too obvious.

 

[spalco]

If only the journalists would ask questions about his TUEs (hint) they might get somewhere.

I am hesitant to say the public has a right to know about an athlete's TUE(s). I mean, does our curiosity really count for more than privacy of medical records?

I have thought about that a bit, and I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but for now I'd say it's not fair to demand this. What if he has some embarrassing illness and doesn't want anyone to know (except his doctor and the appropriate anti-doping authorities), doesn't he have a right to keep this to himself?

And if you're saying "but I just want to know what medication he gets, not what illness the treatment is for", then the next question would immediately be "you take medication XY - why?".

 

[Dalakhani]

Do you care what Froome really says? Absolutely not

Do you look back at Armstrong's 10 years+ or denials, do you care what he said?

(Is this the cycling equivalent of Godwin's law?)

If Froome, or Wiggins said anything that's different to what Lance said, it would be interesting.

If they were providing us with a description of how they legitimately improved over the winter of 2011-2012 in the case of Wiggins, and just before the 2011 Vuelta in the case of Froome, I'm sure we'd find it fascinating.

Unfortunately, we're not getting that. Wiggins gave us Armstrong's greatest hits - insulting people with questions, saying he'd be stupid to take the risk - but nothing new.

Not even an explanation of why Sky chose to hire Leinders.

So what we have is a team that did nothing prior to hiring a doping doctor and then became world beaters after hiring a doping doctor... and who claim that, for 2 years, they had no idea he was a doping doctor.

It is very dangerous think not to want to deal with reality so much guys.

I've just given you some "reality". Would you care to deal with it?

 

[the sceptic]

I am hesitant to say the public has a right to know about an athlete's TUE(s). I mean, does our curiosity really count for more than privacy of medical records?

I have thought about that a bit, and I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but for now I'd say it's not fair to demand this. What if he has some embarrassing illness and doesn't want anyone to know (except his doctor and the appropriate anti-doping authorities), doesn't he have a right to keep this to himself?

And if you're saying "but I just want to know what medication he gets, not what illness the treatment is for", then the next question would immediately be "you take medication XY - why?".

Well, he doesnt have any problem with telling everyone about badzilla. (which is the complete opposite of EPO by the way, dont forget)

The story of dawg is just too funny. While he was getting dropped on the flat in races in south africa, people realized what an immense talent he was.

Then he came to europe, but unfortunately he started reverse doping so he sucked for a couple of years. But, people told him that once he got rid of the badzilla he would be a tour de france winner for sure.

What a great story

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I am hesitant to say the public has a right to know about an athlete's TUE(s). I mean, does our curiosity really count for more than privacy of medical records?

Good point, really. But, isnt the public supposed to know how sick these A athletes are and how great it is to see people with astma/fill in any sickness that involves the lungs or blood ride better than people without so we can cheer them on even with more due respect?

At least in a non - sport like Formula One we know some data on revs, speed etc etc.

 

[thehog]

I am hesitant to say the public has a right to know about an athlete's TUE(s). I mean, does our curiosity really count for more than privacy of medical records?

I have thought about that a bit, and I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but for now I'd say it's not fair to demand this. What if he has some embarrassing illness and doesn't want anyone to know (except his doctor and the appropriate anti-doping authorities), doesn't he have a right to keep this to himself?

And if you're saying "but I just want to know what medication he gets, not what illness the treatment is for", then the next question would immediately be "you take medication XY - why?".

Nothing to do with his supposed illness. TUEs should not and are not private.

Perhaps the topic for a thread on its own but TUE management is the most misunderstood element of cycling medication program.

They are often abused. Once you see an athletes TUE usage you start to get a better idea about the nature of the medical program they're using.

Best part for a cyclists is the TUE is legal. Why do you think they hired Leinders and not a regular sports Doctor? Leinders's knowledge of TUEs is second to none.

The part or TUEs that is missed is its supposed to be for "therapeutic" use. Not performance enhancement.

Maybe Cycling news will ask them the question at the next interview? Or that may get them put on the journalist blacklist.

 

[spalco]

Good point, really. But, isnt the public supposed to know how sick these A athletes are and how great it is to see people with astma/fill in any sickness that involves the lungs or blood ride better than people without so we can cheer them on even with more due respect?

At least in a non - sport like Formula One we know some data on revs, speed etc etc.

Well, I would like to know too, I'm just not sure if it's right to force them to disclose it. It would certainly be an impressive gesture for any cyclists to publicise it themselves though.

[snip]

What am I misunderstanding? Let's say I'm a pro athlete and I get diagnosed with, whatever, let's say some skin condition and my doctor gives me a cortisone creme, despite it being on the WADA list, because it's simply the most effective medication for whatever I've got. That's what TUE are for, right?

My concern now is, what if I've got syphilis or hemorroids, and I don't want my mother in law to know?

 

[Granville57]

My concern now is, what if I've got syphilis or hemorroids, and I don't want my mother in law to know?

The poor woman has already had to endure the embarrassment of her daughter being married to a guy half her weight who spends his days is multi-colored spandex and is afraid to walk up a flight of stairs for fear that it will affect his performance the next day.

I doubt the TUE revelation will cause much of a stir.