Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bewildered]

I too feel that most of the cynicism around here about Froome is underscored by this.

Nonsense, it is about his ascent times that no clean cyclist has ever come near before, it is about his domination of both climbs and ITTs, it is about his remarkable transformation from mediocre rider who was about to be released to the best cyclist in history (if clean, not just a GT podium or GT winner but THE BEST EVER) in the space of 2 years, it is about us seeing all of this before numerous times and EVERY time the rider was doped.

With all of this it is more than reasonable to suspect doping. Some people are willing to form a opinion based on their suspicions and others prefer to keep an open mind. But bearing the above in mind, you would have to be incredibly naive to believe that he is 100% clean IMO

 

[Cobblestones]

I too feel that most of the cynicism around here about Froome is underscored by this.

Right. Up to 'the couch' the Clinic was totally in love with Armstrong. We had hundreds of threads with thousands of posts each proclaiming our undying love to Cancer-Jesus. There was a point when the whole front page of the Clinic was filled with 'Lance devotion' and 'support Livestrong fundraiser' threads. We even had an admin called 'Wonderlance'. Now everybody feels so betrayed by Lance that we all think he's a lying cheat when he says 'you can't win the Tour clean'. Which is somehow also the reason why we think Froome can't win the Tour clean. And, of course, Wonderlance has gone missing. Brilliant explanation.

 

[King Boonen]

Certainly he's doping silly. Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

Besides look at those times. Only a doped Pantani was faster on Mont Ventoux in 1994 at 57'34" (though only by 16 seconds!), whereas Froom clocked at 50'50" was faster than a doped Contador (58'45") in 2009 and a doped Armstrong (59'00") in 2002.

How is it humanly possible that Froomdawg is faster than those doped riders?

It's just not possible clean.

Could you describe, in detail, the stage you are talking about in each case. It's length, previous climbs, where in the Tour it occurred. What work did each rider have to do in every stage leading up to it? Was it a decisive stage or were they likely to hold back once clear? Was it before or after a rest day? Did their team do much work or were they alone for most of the climb? What was the temperature? Did it rain?

All of these things, and no doubt a multitude of others, can influence a final time up a climb, which is why comparing times from completely different events is very flimsy.

I find it hard to believe he's clean, but claiming either as a certainly is, frankly, ridiculous.

 

[King Boonen]

Nonsense, it is about his ascent times that no clean cyclist has ever come near before, it is about his domination of both climbs and ITTs, it is about his remarkable transformation from mediocre rider who was about to be released to the best cyclist in history (if clean, not just a GT podium or GT winner but THE BEST EVER) in the space of 2 years, it is about us seeing all of this before numerous times and EVERY time the rider was doped.

With all of this it is more than reasonable to suspect doping

hyperbole warning.

 

[rhubroma]

Can you expand on the above as this is the most shocking/revealing post/accusation I've read regarding Froome and doping.

No, I can't, or rather wont. Next question please.

 

[Snafu352]

Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

You are the anointed one are you? Weak.
I have it on good authority, inside sources told me, that the pope is catholic. What does that prove exactly? What are these treatments? Who is being paid?
If you've got this info and it points to doping why are you hinting at it on a forum that one of it's members recently claimed has no influence? Why not take it to an entity or entities that may be able to use it?

It's just not possible clean.

In your opinion. I don't know.

I do know that your post is another example of the valueless opinions expressed as fact on the clinic.

 

[rhubroma]

Could you describe, in detail, the stage you are talking about in each case. It's length, previous climbs, where in the Tour it occurred. What work did each rider have to do in every stage leading up to it? Was it a decisive stage or were they likely to hold back once clear? Was it before or after a rest day? Did their team do much work or were they alone for most of the climb? What was the temperature? Did it rain?

All of these things, and no doubt a multitude of others, can influence a final time up a climb, which is why comparing times from completely different events is very flimsy.

I find it hard to believe he's clean, but claiming either as a certainly is, frankly, ridiculous.

At all events we're in the realm of the Extraterrestrials. Haven't we been down this road enough times before to get it?

 

[darwin553]

Right. Up to 'the couch' the Clinic was totally in love with Armstrong. We had hundreds of threads with thousands of posts each proclaiming our undying love to Cancer-Jesus. There was a point when the whole front page of the Clinic was filled with 'Lance devotion' and 'support Livestrong fundraiser' threads. We even had an admin called 'Wonderlance'. Now everybody feels so betrayed by Lance that we all think he's a lying cheat when he says 'you can't win the Tour clean'. Which is somehow also the reason why we think Froome can't win the Tour clean. And, of course, Wonderlance has gone missing. Brilliant explanation.

It wasn't necessarily about liking him. It was more about the effect on the cycling community of his spectacular fall from grace.

 

[King Boonen]

At all events we're in the realm of the Extraterrestrials. Haven't we been down this road enough times before to get it?

Then indulge me. I have not seen anyone do a rigorous analysis of the meta-data in any thread. They either compare times or w/kg with little to no thought about extraneous factors.

 

[darwin553]

If Sky wanted to assist in proving that they're clean, they'd be completely transparent with their numbers, data, etc. They wouldn't have hired Leinders.

And handing it to WADA or an independent assessor with authority from WADA still wouldn't be good enough?

 

[Snafu352]

Complete nonsense. This is exactly the same argument Lance fans used. Every single one were proven wrong.

If Sky wanted to assist in proving that they're clean, they'd be completely transparent with their numbers, data, etc. They wouldn't have hired Leinders.

What is happening here is blatantly obvious to all but the most willfully obtuse Sky fan.

Sounds like a lynch mob to me and we all know tjhose never string up anybody other than the guilty don't we.

I don't know who is doping or not, i do know that i need stronger evidence than lots of people shouting that it must be him to string somebody up.

 

[thehog]

Certainly he's doping silly. Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

Besides look at those times. Only a doped Pantani was faster on Mont Ventoux in 1994 at 57'34" (though only by 16 seconds!), whereas Froom clocked at 50'50" was faster than a doped Contador (58'45") in 2009 and a doped Armstrong (59'00") in 2002.

How is it humanly possible that Froomdawg is faster than those doped riders?

It's just not possible clean.

It should be noted that Pantani rode during the "unrestricted" EPO years. Only the 50% health test to worry about.

The Dawg is now level with a guy who could amp to 60% and beyond!

 

[thehog]

Sounds like a lynch mob to me and we all know tjhose never string up anybody other than the guilty don't we.

I don't know who is doping or not, i do know that i need stronger evidence than lots of people shouting that it must be him to string somebody up.

Think you need to watch the Ventoux stage again.

Man if thats not doping then I don't know what is!

 

[horsinabout]

Certainly he's doping silly. Inside sources have let me know that he's spending 500,000 £ a year for the "treatments."

Besides look at those times. Only a doped Pantani was faster on Mont Ventoux in 1994 at 57'34" (though only by 16 seconds!), whereas Froom clocked at 50'50" was faster than a doped Contador (58'45") in 2009 and a doped Armstrong (59'00") in 2002.

How is it humanly possible that Froomdawg is faster than those doped riders?

It's just not possible clean.

Well the actual time taken to the summit of Vonteux is one thing, it was Froome's acceleration that is the total alarm bell ringer. I think he would have out paced even Pantani. £500.000 worth of acceleration - WOW!!

 

[Red Lobster]

I don't know who is doping or not, i do know that i need stronger evidence than lots of people shouting that it must be him to string somebody up.

We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.

 

[rhubroma]

You are the anointed one are you? Weak.
I have it on good authority, inside sources told me, that the pope is catholic. What does that prove exactly? What are these treatments? Who is being paid?
If you've got this info and it points to doping why are you hinting at it on a forum that one of it's members recently claimed has no influence? Why not take it to an entity or entities that may be able to use it?



In your opinion. I don't know.

I do know that your post is another example of the valueless opinions expressed as fact on the clinic.

And I'm tired of the boundless idiots who continue to believe in fary tales. My "opinion" may indeed be valueless, but yours is full *** mate.

 

[darwin553]

We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.

Yes, yes it is evidence enough for a forum to find him guilty but WADA, UCI?? It is only just the beginning of trying to mount a case against Froome...

 

[bewildered]

Sounds like a lynch mob to me and we all know tjhose never string up anybody other than the guilty don't we.

I don't know who is doping or not, i do know that i need stronger evidence than lots of people shouting that it must be him to string somebody up.

Nobody is looking to string anybody up. People are giving opinions on what they think looks far more likely than not and history is on their side

 

[rhubroma]

It should be noted that Pantani rode during the "unrestricted" EPO years. Only the 50% health test to worry about.

The Dawg is now level with a guy who could amp to 60% and beyond!

Yes and he's doing it under 50%. What magic potion is he drinking?

 

[Snafu352]

We have such evidence, and it has been repeated many times above, but for whatever reason you simply disregard or dismiss it.

As i said previously "There is masses of speculation, none of which is based on hard fact or data, thus it is not evidence whatever you or your chums may sincerely, deeply, wish to believe."

Who's "We" by the way? Always interesting when the group or mob majority is invoked to imply right .

 

[Snafu352]

Think you need to watch the Ventoux stage again.

Man if thats not doping then I don't know what is!

So no facts or hard data then just your amateur opinion based on tv pictures.

Froome might be doping, i don't know. I do know that comments such as yours don't help the cause of proving he is.

 

[rhubroma]

As i said previously "There is masses of speculation, none of which is based on hard fact or data, thus it is not evidence whatever you or your chums may sincerely, deeply, wish to believe."

Who's "We" by the way? Always interesting when the group or mob majority is invoked to imply right .

Hard fact and data, hard fact and data, hard fact and data, hard fact and data...eventually it will all sink in.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I do not think he is clean but ..position

 

[thehog]

So no facts or hard data then just your amateur opinion based on tv pictures.

Froome might be doping, i don't know. I do know that comments such as yours don't help the cause of proving he is.

Well if Sky would give me the "hard" data then we could all decide. But they won't release it will they?

So I'm working on my trsuted eye of 20 years in cycling.

I say doping. 100%.

Brave man would say Froome is clean.

Seated attacking, just for fun!

 

[Red Lobster]

As i said previously "There is masses of speculation, none of which is based on hard fact or data, thus it is not evidence whatever you or your chums may sincerely, deeply, wish to believe."

Who's "We" by the way? Always interesting when the group or mob majority is invoked to imply right .

"We" is referring those participating on the forum: you, me, the hog, darwin, et al. Hard to believe that is a point of confusion for you, or an important point, but there you go. I suppose I could also question your use of "we" in your prior post but I really don't think it is the salient query.

And as for your quoted statement, sure, play semantics, call it "speculation" versus "evidence", I don't care and I don't think it makes any difference for purposes of an Internet forum discussion. We (there's that word again!) can speculate based on what we see from Froome and what we know from cycling's history and draw conclusions based on that. Not sure why that is so controversial for you.