Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

How will you determine whether or not he has done 'a Walsh'?

I assume you don't just mean typos, poor research and dodgy biblical/Rhopaloceral metaphors

doing a Walsh = becoming a believer

 

[doolols]

doing a Walsh = becoming a believer

I'm sure Kimmage is a believer until there is something to disbelieve.

 

[the sceptic]

I'm sure Kimmage is a believer until there is something to disbelieve.

True, nothing suspicious about Froome.

 

[red_flanders]

Kimmage just tweeted that he spent three hours with Froome in Monaco this week.

This should be interesting.

I would be surprised if it's terribly interesting.

Judging from the reactions to your post (and quite likely or possibly not your intent) but some people are expecting Kimmage to form or re-form his opinion of Froome's cleanliness or lack thereof by talking to him?

I'll never understand why people think that giving a journo some access to the rider or riders will reveal anything. I could easily dope if a journalist lived in my house for crying out loud. If some logistics are in place, it's not that time consuming or difficult to conceal the activities required.

Slays me that Walsh seems to think his access to Sky had any meaning as to the question of whether they're clean.

 

[the sceptic]

I would be surprised if it's terribly interesting.

Judging from the reactions to your post (and quite likely or possibly not your intent) but some people are expecting Kimmage to form or re-form his opinion of Froome's cleanliness or lack thereof by talking to him?

I'll never understand why people think that giving a journo some access to the rider or riders will reveal anything. I could easily dope if a journalist lived in my house for crying out loud. If some logistics are in place, it's not that time consuming or difficult to conceal the activities required.

Slays me that Walsh seems to think his access to Sky had any meaning as to the question of whether they're clean.

Exactly, Froome would of course never give an interview with Kimmage if he thought it could reveal anything. Which is why I am surprised this is happening in the first place as Kimmage isnt a pet like Walsh who will believe all the crap that is served to him.

 

[red_flanders]

Exactly, Froome would of course never give an interview with Kimmage if he thought it could reveal anything. Which is why I am surprised this is happening in the first place as Kimmage isnt a pet like Walsh who will believe all the crap that is served to him.

Well, Kimmage is a journalist, why wouldn't he take the interview? Sometimes there are conditions from either the media outlet or the interviewee, and I'd be surprised if Kimmage took an interview with a rider with certain questions out of bounds. I would expect Kimmage to ask some good questions and have some good follow up, but he's not going to crack any case by talking to the guy. For Froome, he gets an opportunity to proclaim his cleanliness and use the exoneration from the UCI that "process" was followed as (falsely) equivalent to actual cleanliness.

What's Kimmage going to say? "Why did you not race at Liege?"

"I was sick."

"How were you able to ride in such dominant fashion if you were so sick you needed Prednisone to treat a respiratory infection?"

"The medication helped, and let's be clear, it's allowed by the UCI. Everything was done properly."

And so on...

 

[ferryman]

I've taken this quote from a post from JV1993 in another thread, and it is no way his view, but I think it is interesting in this thread:

Your point on little fish is going to be impossible to explain to the satisfaction of the conspiracy minded. But what I would ask that you consider is that in an environment where highly effective doping is receding, but yet to be eliminated, you end up with an odd coexistence of highly talented athletes winning and less talented, yet doped athletes winning. Also, in this part doping/part not environment the risk/reward ratio is very different for the highly talented athlete, as to say, he can still have a highly successful career without doping. Of course, doping would increase that even further, but still, he would be able to earn well clean. Only pure sociopathic greed causes this highly talented rider to choose to "win even more!" than they could clean, and dope. A less talented athlete would not have a similar risk/reward ratio. They would "need" the doping to succeed in any form, and in great quantities, so the risk of being caught increases quite a bit. Just consider it. Not meant as an absolute explanation.

 

[The Hitch]

Froome Positive after Romandie win


Talk about a bad headline phrasing from BEIN sports....

This headline wasn't so bad afterall

 

[the sceptic]

oh my this article is just pure gold

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html

Chris Froome's secret battle: Eight doctors, six clinics, four countries and five different illnesses... the remarkable personal struggle of Great Britain's Tour de France champion

I dont even know where to begin.

 

[BYOP88]

Yet he can still thrash people who are doping. I can't wait until he's free of all those illnesses, when he is he'll be riding up Alpe d'Huez in 10 minutes.

 

[The Hitch]

The article fails to mention how all those illnesses actually end up benefiting Froome

 

[BikeDuder]

oh my this article is just pure gold

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html


I dont even know where to begin.

What about here:

"Froome had another TUE for the same drug last year but is frustrated that he is now portrayed in some quarters as having done wrong, or even cheated. ‘It’s not a nice position to be in,’ he said. ‘Me and the team have followed the rules to a T and we are being ripped apart."

So this is not the first time he has used prednisone in competition...

I do not know if this fact was already in the open??

 

[the sceptic]

What about here:

Froome had another TUE for the same drug last year but is frustrated that he is now portrayed in some quarters as having done wrong, or even cheated. ‘It’s not a nice position to be in,’ he said. ‘Me and the team have followed the rules to a T and we are being ripped apart.

So this is not the first time he has used prednisone in competition...

I do not know if this fact was already in the open??

Interesting. Do we know which race it was? I dont remember Froome being sick at any point during the 2013 season.

 

[Granville57]

I would be surprised if it's terribly interesting.

I'll never understand why people think that giving a journo some access to the rider or riders will reveal anything.

Agreed. But with Froome, we have someone who is quite likely to completely contradict his own previous statement about something. What's on paper, by itself, may not amount to much. But when compared with past and future statements from Froome, it may reveal quite a bit.

 

[The Hitch]

Agreed. But with Froome, we have someone who is quite likely to completely contradict his own previous statement about something. What's on paper, by itself, may not amount to much. But when compared with past and future statements from Froome, it may reveal quite a bit.

No one in the media has yet picked up on his contradictions.

 

[Granville57]

No one in the media has yet picked up on his contradictions.

I just meant it will be more fun for us.

 

[Granville57]

oh my this article is just pure gold

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...ggle-Great-Britains-Tour-France-champion.html


I dont even know where to begin.

I do.

...taking more than a dozen doses of at least six different medications for at least five separate medical conditions.

Hello.


As to the rest:

Good lord.

Team Sky=bad. They screwed up and didn't provide Chris with the proper care.

Michelle=good! But for her intrepid investigative work, poor Chris never would've never discovered the truth behind his myriad of ailments.

 

[Merckx index]

Now we have a timeline:

Most Westerners are typically cured of bilharzia with one course of medication. Froome eventually needed five courses over almost three years.

1) Having felt out of sorts for a while and with one of his brothers having recently being diagnosed with bilharzia in Nairobi, Froome went to the same clinic to get himself checked when back ‘home’ in Kenya in October 2010.

A blood test carried out by Dr Charles Chunge at the Centre for Tropical and Travel Medicine, came back positive. Froome was ‘riddled’. He was prescribed with a course of Praziquantel, taken over four days.

2) It was June 2011 when Froome found out his May samples were still positive for bilharzia. He took another course of Praziquantel. The treatment made him feel unwell and his despondency was compounded when he was told he would play no role in the 2011 Tour de France.

3) The condition was also misdiagnosed by a GP in South Africa who Froome visited in November 2011, when he again tested positive for bilharzia and had yet another course of treatment.

So he still had it not long after the Vuelta. It didn't affect his Vuelta performance, though it did apparently affect his performance just prior to the Vuelta.

4) Still feeling unwell, he went back to Dr Chunge in Nairobi in March 2012. Not only was the bilharzia still there but Chunge also found typhoid and blastocystosis, the first treated with Gabbroral and Azimax, the second with Orfix, all antibiotics.

Dr Alan Fenwick, director of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative at Imperial College, London, said: ‘I can’t believe he would still be infected after four treatments when he was at that age. Hardly anybody I know has had eggs in their stool and in their urine after three treatments when they haven’t been reinfected — and it’s hard to imagine he’d be reinfected when he’s a first-class athlete who knows about schistosomiasis.’

Dr Chunge said Froome had ‘an unusual number of treatments’ but added: ‘It is difficult to determine if the 2011 doses [in France and South Africa] were adequate.’

This is the doctor who prescribed the first treatment in 2010, and the fourth in 2012, and yet that still wasn't enough? So he's admitting he twice failed to treat Froome adequately?

Even after three unsuccessful treatments, he didn't give him an adequate dose? And a doctor in France didn't know enough to give him an adequate dose? And another in SA, presumably very familiar with treating the disease, didn't either?

Three different doctors didn't give him an adequate dose, including one who failed twice and who is stating that giving an adequate dose is important in treatment?

5) Froome underwent more tests in 2013 in South Africa. Two tests at two separate labs came back positive and Froome was given a heavier dose of Praziquantel.

Finally it worked, although Froome was not to know it until a negative blood test in November 2013. By then his performances had started to show the remarkable rider he is, winning five major races including the Tour de France.

My understanding is that you can’t use a blood test in that situation. The blood test looks for antibodies, which are formed early in the disease and persist after the worms and their eggs are gone.

After one treatment with praziquantel, all you can do is check the urine and stool for eggs. If the worms are still present, the egg count will not decline and may increase.

The article might be referring to an antigen test, but I don't think that is well developed yet. Even if it is, you have to be concerned if some of the eggs are in niches in the body where they don't release antigens into the blood stream, or do so at such a low rate that they are inactivated by the antibodies and don't show up in the tests.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The article fails to mention how all those illnesses actually end up benefiting Froome

hahahaha!!
priceless Hitchey!

 

[mewmewmew13]

agreed. But with froome, we have someone who is quite likely to completely contradict his own previous statement about something. What's on paper, by itself, may not amount to much. But when compared with past and future statements from froome, it may reveal quite a bit.

bingo!!
+++++

 

[gooner]

Brailsford always thought Froome was going to be a Tour winner.

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that on the eve of the Vuelta a España in August 2011, Brailsford told a senior official from RadioShack that Froome was among riders whose contracts were expiring and who were not in Sky’s plans for 2012.

RadioShack were interested in Sky’s Steve Cummings but Brailsford said he was already planning to go elsewhere.

‘Dave then suggested that RadioShack might be interested in Froome,’ said a source with knowledge of the meeting.

‘He made it clear things weren’t working out as envisaged and that Froome might be able to do a job elsewhere.’

RadioShack did not see Froome as the kind of rider they needed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...future-star-Chris-Froome-three-years-ago.html

 

[mewmewmew13]

Now we have a timeline:









So he still had it not long after the Vuelta. It didn't affect his Vuelta performance, though it did apparently affect his performance just prior to the Vuelta.







This is the doctor who prescribed the first treatment in 2010, and the fourth in 2012, and yet that still wasn't enough? So he's admitting he twice failed to treat Froome adequately?

Even after three unsuccessful treatments, he didn't give him an adequate dose? And a doctor in France didn't know enough to give him an adequate dose? And another in SA, presumably very familiar with treating the disease, didn't either?

Three different doctors didn't give him an adequate dose, including one who failed twice and who is stating that giving an adequate dose is important in treatment?



My understanding is that you can’t use a blood test in that situation. The blood test looks for antibodies, which are formed early in the disease and persist after the worms and their eggs are gone.

After one treatment with praziquantel, all you can do is check the urine and stool for eggs. If the worms are still present, the egg count will not decline and may increase.

The article might be referring to an antigen test, but I don't think that is well developed yet. Even if it is, you have to be concerned if some of the eggs are in niches in the body where they don't release antigens into the blood stream, or do so at such a low rate that they are inactivated by the antibodies and don't show up in the tests.

You really could not make this stuff up...!
Wonderful post MI !!

 

[Carstenbf]

The way that article read to me was more or less "Froome is a doper, wake up people!!"

Just sayin'

 

[Winterfold]

A charitable foundation fighting tropical diseases cannot be far away

 

[Pandora]

Now we have a timeline:


My understanding is that you can’t use a blood test in that situation. The blood test looks for antibodies, which are formed early in the disease and persist after the worms and their eggs are gone.

After one treatment with praziquantel, all you can do is check the urine and stool for eggs. If the worms are still present, the egg count will not decline and may increase.

The article might be referring to an antigen test, but I don't think that is well developed yet. Even if it is, you have to be concerned if some of the eggs are in niches in the body where they don't release antigens into the blood stream, or do so at such a low rate that they are inactivated by the antibodies and don't show up in the tests.

Re. no. 5:

That one is unclear.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/25/chris-froome-team-sky-tour-de-france

According to this article, Froome had a test (2 tests?) in January 2013. He should've taken drugs sometime in February and then kept on winning the whole damn year. And the test which confirmed that the February treatment finally worked was performed 9-10 months after the cure?

Edit: Well, he already took the treatment in January.