Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Ripper]

The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.

I'm trying to work out whether you believe what you are typing.

 

[biokemguy]

You can think what you like. But the fact remains that the whole analysis relies on a massive false assumption, which makes it worthless.

I disagree that its a massive false assumption. The assumption is that the top ~5% of finishers go all out in a TT not the whole peloton.

Froome was suddenly able to join the group that goes all out and has TT talent.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Doping or not, Froome is there (since a relative young age in 2011) year round like other CG guys (JRod, AC, Nibali, etc.)...

OTOH, way more suspect are guys who come out of nowhere (and either got fired b/c of lack of success, or wanted to quit b/c of no results) for one tour and then fall back to anonymity like certain ex no-testing-at-ToC or Vuelta winners (Cobo, Horner, for example)...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Doping or not, Froome is there (since a relative young age in 2011) year round like other CG guys (JRod, AC, Nibali, etc.)...

OTOH, way more suspect are guys who come out of nowhere (and either got fired b/c of lack of success, or wanted to quit b/c of no results) for one tour and then fall back to anonymity like certain ex no-testing-at-ToC or Vuelta winners (Cobo, Horner, for example)...

, Wiggins...

 

[42x16ss]

Doping or not, Froome is there (since a relative young age in 2011) year round like other CG guys (JRod, AC, Nibali, etc.)...

OTOH, way more suspect are guys who come out of nowhere (and either got fired b/c of lack of success, or wanted to quit b/c of no results) for one tour and then fall back to anonymity like certain ex no-testing-at-ToC or Vuelta winners (Cobo, Horner, for example)...

So coming out of nowhere mid career only counts if the improvement sticks

Makes sense

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So coming out of nowhere mid career only counts if the improvement sticks

Makes sense

It's in the same category as

"We know the peloton is cleaner coz noone is constantly surging while going uphill".

 

[ebandit]

defence

I agree................. obvious

This is why 99% of the people who believe Froome is clean are british.

And also why we never see you, or other rabid skyfans defending other suspected dopers.

and 99% of those who think da dwag dopes are british.................there you go a further 'well researched' fact

i have no time for those who defend dopers .............those 'rabid sky fans' defend da dawg because they believe he is honest when stating cleans

Mark L

 

[Rollthedice]

Doping or not, Froome is there (since a relative young age in 2011) year round like other CG guys (JRod, AC, Nibali, etc.)...

OTOH, way more suspect are guys who come out of nowhere (and either got fired b/c of lack of success, or wanted to quit b/c of no results) for one tour and then fall back to anonymity like certain ex no-testing-at-ToC or Vuelta winners (Cobo, Horner, for example)...

Sorry but Froome was nowhere until 26 years of age and I mean nowhere. You just can't compare him with Nibali or AC. Froome transformed practically overnight during August 2011. There was absolutely no sign whatsoever that he can become a GT contender until Vuelta 2011. Even Cobo showed at least something before (won Pais Vasco, stage in TdF, 20th in TdF, 10th in Vuelta).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The same as any other sportsman. He showed the ability to do it in training, got given his chance and took it.

But he didn't get given the chance to be a leader from that chance, did he? He got asked to look after Wiggins for the first half of the Vuelta. They continued to back Wiggins even while Froome was leading the race. That doesn't really reek of giving him the chance to see if he could be a leader, does it?

Also, given Team Sky's scramble to justify Froome's performances, it seemed they were almost as taken by surprise by his 2011 Vuelta level as we were.

If he showed the ability to do it in training, and given Sky's commitment to a British Tour winner inside 5 years... why hadn't they locked him down to a contract? In 2010 Cavendish was still tied down by a contract he'd signed in 2007, and was earning far less than his market value. If Sky had persuaded Froome to sign before the 2011 Vuelta (and it wouldn't have taken much given Garmin and Lampre were preparing offers at no more than domestique level) they could still have him on that today, saving a huge amount of money.

Also, where are these training numbers? What are they? We have been told many times "Chris showed the numbers". But we've never been allowed to see what these training numbers were to know whether it's believable or not.

After all, Juanjo Cobo showed the training numbers. Juanjo Cobo was a very talented junior. Juanjo Cobo won the Vuelta al País Vasco, a mountain stage of the Tour and finished top 10 in the Vuelta before. Three weeks before the Vuelta Juanjo Cobo was finishing on the podium of the Vuelta a Burgos, the main Vuelta warmup race, while Froome was losing 8 minutes in a hilly stage in the Tour de Pologne. Yet who's defending Cobo? Cobo showed, prior to the 2011 Vuelta, several times the pedigree that Froome had done. Yet people call BS on Cobo and want us to believe in Froome?

The "he got his chance and took it" argument could also be used to justify Ezequiel Mosquera given all the Puerto absences and the soft route in 2007. I know. I used it.

 

[del1962]

But he didn't get given the chance to be a leader from that chance, did he? He got asked to look after Wiggins for the first half of the Vuelta. They continued to back Wiggins even while Froome was leading the race. That doesn't really reek of giving him the chance to see if he could be a leader, does it?

Also, given Team Sky's scramble to justify Froome's performances, it seemed they were almost as taken by surprise by his 2011 Vuelta level as we were.

If he showed the ability to do it in training, and given Sky's commitment to a British Tour winner inside 5 years... why hadn't they locked him down to a contract? In 2010 Cavendish was still tied down by a contract he'd signed in 2007, and was earning far less than his market value. If Sky had persuaded Froome to sign before the 2011 Vuelta (and it wouldn't have taken much given Garmin and Lampre were preparing offers at no more than domestique level) they could still have him on that today, saving a huge amount of money.

Also, where are these training numbers? What are they? We have been told many times "Chris showed the numbers". But we've never been allowed to see what these training numbers were to know whether it's believable or not.

After all, Juanjo Cobo showed the training numbers. Juanjo Cobo was a very talented junior. Juanjo Cobo won the Vuelta al País Vasco, a mountain stage of the Tour and finished top 10 in the Vuelta before. Three weeks before the Vuelta Juanjo Cobo was finishing on the podium of the Vuelta a Burgos, the main Vuelta warmup race, while Froome was losing 8 minutes in a hilly stage in the Tour de Pologne. Yet who's defending Cobo? Cobo showed, prior to the 2011 Vuelta, several times the pedigree that Froome had done. Yet people call BS on Cobo and want us to believe in Froome?

The "he got his chance and took it" argument could also be used to justify Ezequiel Mosquera given all the Puerto absences and the soft route in 2007. I know. I used it.

Perhaps you could you give us the backstory behind that stage win

 

[Mellow Velo]

I agree. When one wants to believe a narrative, and is blinded by nationalism and ignorance, its easy to ignore the obvious.

This is why 99% of the people who believe Froome is clean are british.

And also why we never see you, or other rabid skyfans defending other suspected dopers.

There is no need for Skyfans to defend other team's suspected dopers.
No one attacks other teams on here, because their fans do not defend them.
That is why their threads are extremely brief or non-existent.

(besides which, it's too much work for 4 or 5 people)

 

[GJB123]

Perhaps you could you give us the backstory behind that stage win

Apparently you can. So please do so. But let me hazard a guess. You will be saying something on his teammates of that year being Piepoli and Ricco, both getting caught for EPO/Cera.

- Will that be your line of reasoning?
- So as soon as we have a few positives at Sky you might change your mind on Froome? We already have JTL (and don't give me the crap that he wasn't under the watchful eyes of Sky in that season), now we have Henao, so we will only need a few more to convince you that Froome might not be as squeaky clean as you believe now?
- Will you take account of the fact that Cobo showed much more promise as a youngster than Froome ever did?
- How do you explain away the fact that in the Tour of Poland just before the Vuelta Froome was still getting his @rse handed to him whenever the road went slightly upwards?
- Do you really think he fared much better at the Vuelta because his bike handling skills and tactical nous suddenly improved dramatically since the Tour of Poland? (His fiancee would have us believe that this and the cure of the "miracle" Bilharzia he contracted is all the explanation needed) Really?
- How do you account for the fact that even Sky thought he was basically hopeless pre-Vuelta?

 

[del1962]

Apparently you can. So please do so. But let me hazard a guess. You will besaying something on his teammates of that year being Piepoli and Ricco, both getting caught for EPO/Cera.

- Will that be your line of reasoning?
- So as soon as we have a few positives at Sky you might change your mind on Froome? We already have JTL (and don't give me the crap that he wasn't under the watchful eyes of Sky in that season), now we have Henao, so we will only need a few more to convince you that Froome might not be as squeaky clean as you believe now?
- Will you take count of the fact that Cobo showed much more promise as a youngster than Froome ever did?
- How do you explain away the fact that in the Tour of Poland just before the Vuelta Froome was still getting his @rse handed to him whenever the road went slightly upwards?
- Do you really think he fared much better at the Vuelta because his bike handling skills and tactical nous suddenly improved dramatically since the Tour of Poland? (His fiancee would have us believe that this and the cure of the "miracle" Bilharzia he contracted is all the explanation needed) Really?
- How do you account for the fact that even Sky thought he was basically hopeless pre-Vuelta?

You are putting out the crap on the JTL story.

if Henao has been doping it seems that is Sky that have picked this up, lets wait for the full story to come out though

other stuff on Froomes rise has been dicussed to death, not relevent to the backstory behind Cobo's victory.

 

[42x16ss]

Perhaps you could you give us the backstory behind that stage win

How does a busted doper (Piepoli) beating Cobo in the sprint take anything away from Cobo

Unless Cobo keeping up with a convicted doper is somehow bad. If that is the case, it makes Froome look even worse, doesn't it

 

[del1962]

How does a busted doper (Piepoli) beating Cobo in the sprint take anything away from Cobo

Unless Cobo keeping up with a convicted doper is somehow bad. If that is the case, it makes Froome look even worse, doesn't it

They had a sprint against each other at the end of the race?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Perhaps you could you give us the backstory behind that stage win

Juanjo Cobo has never been named in an investigation, never tested positive, and has a medically confirmed justification for his fluctuating performance. All you have are some teammates testing positive in 2008 and wildly differing performance levels. If you're happy to sling mud at Cobo, you should surely be pretty accepting of others slinging mud at Froome, right?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1041130&postcount=5820

I would honestly, no word of a lie, rather put my hand in the fire for Juanjo Cobo than for Chris Froome.

 

[gillan1969]

How does a busted doper (Piepoli) beating Cobo in the sprint take anything away from Cobo

Unless Cobo keeping up with a convicted doper is somehow bad. If that is the case, it makes Froome look even worse, doesn't it

nothing can make Froome look worse......and every time he steps over a bike pro cycling dies just another wee bit......

 

[del1962]

Juanjo Cobo has never been named in an investigation, never tested positive, and has a medically confirmed justification for his fluctuating performance. All you have are some teammates testing positive in 2008 and wildly differing performance levels. If you're happy to sling mud at Cobo, you should surely be pretty accepting of others slinging mud at Froome, right?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1041130&postcount=5820

I would honestly, no word of a lie, rather put my hand in the fire for Juanjo Cobo than for Chris Froome.

Perhaps he had no idea of his teammates doping when he celebrated his win, but it was you who brought him into this thread no me.

 

[GJB123]

You are putting out the crap on the JTL story.

if Henao has been doping it seems that is Sky that have picked this up, lets wait for the full story to come out though

other stuff on Froomes rise has been dicussed to death, not relevent to the backstory behind Cobo's victory.

It has been done to death, yet when it suits you you have no problem doing things over and over again. It's just when you get called out on Froome that you start having problems with it. Sad really.

But hey, please give me the lowdown on the Cobo victory. It must be pretty telling if it leads you to automatically believe Cobo is dirty whereas Froome isn't.

 

[hrotha]

Perhaps he had no idea of his teammates doping when he celebrated his win, but it was you who brought him into this thread no me.

Piepoli and Riccò would be to Cobo's later Vuelta win as Dueñas and Pfannberger are to Froome's Tour win.

 

[del1962]

It has been done to death, yet when it suits you you have no problem doing things over and over again. It's just when you get called out on Froome that you start having problems with it. Sad really.

But hey, please give me the lowdown on the Cobo victory. It must be pretty telling if it leads you to automatically believe Cobo is dirty whereas Froome isn't.

If people like Liberty bring Cobo into this thread as a means of bashing Froome, then he will get discussed, perhaps you and LS should start a thread on Cobo exonnerating his virtues. Don't worry I wont be going into it making accusations against him.

 

[RownhamHill]

If you read the thread, you will see RH accused SiC of having an agenda. Which is the opposite of science.

If you read my post relating to RH's agenda, you will see that, despite having time and internet access, RH decided to not do a quick check to see if his suggested explanation (everyone got slower) to counter SiC's conclusion could be supported by something as trivial as facts.

It's all very well and good to have an agenda, but if you continue a narrative based on that agenda, ignoring evidence, it seems disingenuous, or lazy.

And also explains why this thread is so long

ETA: no problem with laziness either, to be clear. Not sure if it's too personal to point it out too. It irks me, I guess. Scenes of the cruise ship from Wall-e spring to mind.

Right. This is really tiresome. Let me be very clear, for the final time - I am making no attempt to definitively 'explain' the data-set that John has produced. Please Dear Wiggo try and hold that point in your head. I'm going to re-iterate it. I am not suggesting a 'true' explanation for the data-set.

What I am suggesting is that there are a range of possible explanations that fit the data set that has been observed (and again, let me reiterate I make no judgement on which is 'best'). However, the data-set, in and of itself, makes no judgement on which of those explanations is best - it simply quantifies and records Froome's relative increase in performance - which we're all aware of. The take home I take from that data is that further research is needed - especially some attempt to normalise data across time - before any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Now. In presenting his data John has excluded all the possible explanations on that explanatory spectrum for that data except the very extreme explanation that the increase in relative performance is due entirely and solely to an increase in Chris Froome's ftp performance. I am quite willing to accept that possibility might turn out to be true, but equally I recognise this is just one possibility of many.

So. I am suggesting that a scientist who provides one single explanation of a data set, an explanation that is at the extreme end of a spectrum of possible explanations, then uses that explanation to extrapolate a set of conclusions that the data doesn't even speak to (a permanent increase of ftp of 20%, highly indicative of doping, etc), then continually presents those conclusions as 'fact' without even acknowledging any of the other possible conclusions that could equally be drawn from his data as it stands, isn't necessarily a very good scientist. In fact, the process I've described is, in my opinion, the opposite of good science - which is suggestive of either a deliberate agenda or incompetence. Of course you can agree or disagree with that suggestion as you see fit, and we can discuss in a civil manner.

Now, I'm aware that's a pretty harsh judgement to draw on another posters argument, and I'm also aware of my own possible fallibility in understanding the arguments being made, so therefore I was seeking clarification as to whether or not my observations were fair. I did that by asking the person making the claim to better explain their conclusions - which is what I was doing last night (for the second time I would add). And to be fair, John did engage in in very good faith (although his explanation (essentially 'there is no ambiguity because I don't believe there to be') was desperately unsatisfactory in my opinion).

Let me be clear, again. I am not suggesting one explanation over another, just presenting a case that alternative explanations exist (which I have done at length). So the only 'claim' I am making is that there is more than one explanation to the data, and I think I have presented ample evidence to back that claim up (unless you'd like to explain to me why a relative decrease in two data points can only be explained by one of the points increasing and not the other decreasing).

Does this conversation now make sense to you Dear Wiggo? Can you now understand why accusing me of laziness and disingenuousness because I haven't gone and googled 'facts' that do nothing at all to move the conversation forward isn't very helpful?

Anyway, based on the evidence I've seen I'm happy to accept that John Swanson has no agenda at all, he's just a desperately poor scientist, and I'm happy to agree to differ with anyone who draws any other opinion based on the observed facts.

 

[GJB123]

If people like Liberty bring Cobo into this thread as a means of bashing Froome, then he will get discussed, perhaps you and LS should start a thread on Cobo exonnerating his virtues. Don't worry I wont be going into it making accusations against him.

He was bringing up Cobo to make a point that you seem to be less than consistent when it comes to calling out riders without any actual proof and plenty of reason to question their performances. It seems to me that he succeeded because you have been ducking every question put to you since he did.

 

[del1962]

He was bringing up Cobo to make a point that you seem to be less than consistent when it comes to calling out riders without any actual proof and plenty of reason to question their performances. It seems to me that he succeeded because you have been ducking every question put to you since he did.

If you want to start a thread on Cobo, nothing is stopping you,

Perhaps you would justify you Sky doped JTL mythology, that Sky doped JTL to win a bunch of races in 2012 then when he joins Sky he can hardly finish a world tour race, makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[GJB123]

If you want to start a thread on Cobo, nothing is stopping you,

Perhaps you would justify you Sky doped JTL mythology, that Sky doped JTL to win a bunch of races in 2012 then when he joins Sky he can hardly finish a world tour race, makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, I would just settle for you answering my questions in post #9255. Although I will not be holding my breathe for it.

I am not interested in Cobo per say but I am interested why you seem to come to such different conclusions when comparing Cob's case to Froome's case. And since this the Froome thread, I would like to see you answer my questions in post #9255 and while you are at to, some of the other questions posed to you.