Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Futuroscope]

What talented rider who is clean has even approached his times? I can't think of any.

Why are you asking me that question? I never said anything about clean riders matching him.

 

[Digger]

Simple question to any sky fans - name one, just one rider over a hundred years who has improved as suddenly and dramatically as froome...

secondly, how do they think a clean rider is riding as fast, if not faster than oxygen vector doping times?

Now people, such as Race Radio, said that Froome's time on Ventoux was slower than Mayo's so it was 'encouraging'...but back in reality, what froome did that day would need him to be the greatest rider of all time...

 

[red_flanders]

Why are you asking me that question? I never said anything about clean riders matching him.

Just a continuation of the thought. I have no idea what specifically would constitute "less doping" or how it would be measured, or how it would effect times. Whatever's going on now hasn't had the lid blown off it.

So the question whether riders can match his times with "less doping" is for me unanswerable.

I just don't see where anyone ever, who hasn't been associated with oxygen vector doping has matched his times except a couple of Sky riders.

I don't know if Contador was involved in less doping or more doping or both for example. Just no way to tell

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I dont going to write everything in a forum when I worte that article to answer to all those people as the sceptic.

From 2010 vuelta I have read a lot of stuopid things about cycling, about, SKY, and about Froome.

Some people said:

He was unknow, and I showed that no.
Nodody talked about him as a possible star, and I showed how that was false.
The treatment of Bilharzia help with performance or with the biopassport: false.
He is a one day rider as Jaskula..., and we said, no, he is a good rider, he has come to stay...
He is geting similar performance that in the dark era. If you go a good analysis, that is totally false.
The similar people that assert that with Cookson Sky will fly..,
But thay got always an explanation for everything.. Of course is possible to find it, but that is not to have the truth.
if you think that today nothing changed and doping is importart, of course Froome must be on the same way, but if you think that today doping is already a small part of cycling, you can see how ererything with Froome makes sense.

2010 Vuelta? People were talking about Froome at the 2010 Vuelta? I take everything back, if people were hyping him then. I thought he was DNFing the Canadian one-day races after a season affected by illness and injury where he was DQed from the Giro for holding onto a motorbike and where his best climbing performance was riding as a domestique for Morris Possoni.

Did you believe the reasons behind Ezequiel Mosquera's late blooming? Tiernan-Locke?

How about Santi Pérez?

What you've done is show reasons why you feel the arguments against Froome to be wrong. And some of them have nothing to do with doping either ("nobody was talking about him pre-2011", for example). What you haven't done, however, is show any evidence that he's clean. Only that certain accusations have been jumping to conclusions before the mitigating factors were considered.

 

[Futuroscope]

Just a continuation of the thought. I have no idea what specifically would constitute "less doping" or how it would be measured, or how it would effect times. Whatever's going on now hasn't had the lid blown off it.

So the question whether riders can match his times with "less doping" is for me unanswerable.

I just don't see where anyone ever, who hasn't been associated with oxygen vector doping has matched his times except a couple of Sky riders.

I don't know if Contador was involved in less doping or more doping or both for example. Just no way to tell

I think the biological passport has reduced the doping (and/or it's effects) but it's still there and they have become better at manipulating the system. That's where I think Sky had the advantage for a couple of years but now others have (as expected) caught up. Of course, you always have the question of new products/methods but still you can't let your bio values fluctuate too much.

This is assuming the bio passports are actually analyzed and correct values are fed into the system...

 

[red_flanders]

I think the biological passport has reduced the doping (and/or it's effects) but it's still there and they have become better at manipulating the system. That's where I think Sky had the advantage for a couple of years but now others have (as expected) caught up. Of course, you always have the question of new products/methods but still you can't let your bio values fluctuate too much.

This is assuming the bio passports are actually analyzed and correct values are fed into the system...

I think that's a reasonable view, but I can't help but wonder why, if doping has been reduced, are the top riders from this time period riding as fast as the top riders from the period in which we know for sure all the top guys were doping.

I think it's accurate that there are fewer riders hitting those times now, but the difference is the top 3-5 are extremely suspicious instead of the top 30.

 

[Almeisan]

I dont going to write everything in a forum when I worte that article to answer to all those people as the sceptic.

From 2010 vuelta I have read a lot of stuopid things about cycling, about, SKY, and about Froome.

Some people said:

He was unknow, and I showed that no.
Nodody talked about him as a possible star, and I showed how that was false.
The treatment of Bilharzia help with performance or with the biopassport: false.
He is a one day rider as Jaskula..., and we said, no, he is a good rider, he has come to stay...
He is geting similar performance that in the dark era. If you go a good analysis, that is totally false.
The similar people that assert that with Cookson Sky will fly..,
But thay got always an explanation for everything.. Of course is possible to find it, but that is not to have the truth.
if you think that today nothing changed and doping is importart, of course Froome must be on the same way, but if you think that today doping is already a small part of cycling, you can see how ererything with Froome makes sense.

liar

10char

 

[Futuroscope]

I think that's a reasonable view, but I can't help but wonder why, if doping has been reduced, are the top riders from this time period riding as fast as the top riders from the period in which we know for sure all the top guys were doping.

I think it's accurate that there are fewer riders hitting those times now, but the difference is the top 3-5 are extremely suspicious instead of the top 30.

Natural progression is one factor. I'm not saying it explains everything and (continued) doping is obviously another (confounding) factor.

 

[Taxus4a]

Simple question to any sky fans - name one, just one rider over a hundred years who has improved as suddenly and dramatically as froome...

secondly, how do they think a clean rider is riding as fast, if not faster than oxygen vector doping times?

Now people, such as Race Radio, said that Froome's time on Ventoux was slower than Mayo's so it was 'encouraging'...but back in reality, what froome did that day would need him to be the greatest rider of all time...

I am not an sky fan, I say today there is not doping in pro cycling, and I know that, it is not something that I think, it is something I know, but it is something impossible to prove totally. Of course, it would be always some people who is going to take risks, and maybe some teams could do somthing in an small scale. I dont know, I hope no, but no more.

It is not true that clean riders are going the same speed than in the dark era, if you really want to discuss that no problem, but if you are serious and with an open mind, I could say why I argument that.

There are some climbs that you can compare, and there are anothers that you cant, you must take a lot of factors into condiration.

I think that today you if you are really good, if you do altitude training, if you have a lot of specialist around you, and if you take into account small things nobody care in the past, with the tecnology and better bikes of today, you can performe similar to a big doper in the 2000, no doubt for me, in fact, Hamilton sald in his book, people were wining clean then. But you cant perform similar in the last week of a GT, and that it is a fact that they dont do that now.

if we take last year TdF and this one, Hautacam and alp D Huez, we see how the performance, that should be better nowadays, is clearly worst:

http://www.climbing-records.com/2014/07/new-hautacam-top-100-nibali-close-to.html

http://www.climbing-records.com/2013/07/five-fresh-names-in-all-time-top-100.html

In Mont ventoux the same, only a good time from case deserte, but if you see videos of diferents years, you will se hoy this time the wind was more favourable than another years.

In Ax 3 domaines, yes it is a good time, anyway people as Laiseka did better time than a super Froome, but if you see another years, that stage was at the end of the race... this is the only year at the begining, after a non stresing week, not like this year...The Tour 2003 was crazy hard, crazy hot, and the stage was in the last week. Despite of that, Zubeldia doing similar time than Froome.

And you trying to convice me that there is doping for sure?

People really good, dont improve a lot with doping.
If tomorrow someone now do Hautacam or Alp d Huez after more mountain stages, 3 minutes less than Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Froome,... I would say: according the performance, he must be doping, maybe less than Pantani or Riis, becouse a lot of things help the performance today, but totally clean is not possible to do that so far, we will see in the future.

 

[TailWindHome]

Simple question to any sky fans - name one, just one rider over a hundred years who has improved as suddenly and dramatically as froome......

Graeme Obree?

**** all to Hour Record holder and World Champion at 28

Driven out of the sport as he wasn't professional enough to dope.

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

Simple question to any sky fans - name one, just one rider over a hundred years who has improved as suddenly and dramatically as froome...

secondly, how do they think a clean rider is riding as fast, if not faster than oxygen vector doping times?

Now people, such as Race Radio, said that Froome's time on Ventoux was slower than Mayo's so it was 'encouraging'...but back in reality, what froome did that day would need him to be the greatest rider of all time...

Mayo's Ventoux time was a time trial of just the mountain in the Dauphine anyway. Froome's time is up there with confirmed dopers if you take out the times from time trials.

1. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
2. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
3. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
4. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
5. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
6. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
7. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
8. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
9. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
10. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
11. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h
12. 1994: 59:02 Miguel Indurain 21.85 km/h
13. 1994: 59:02 Roberto Conti 21.85 km/h
14. 2009: 59:03 Franco Pellizotti 21.85 km/h
15. 2000: 59:05 Marco Pantani 21.83 km/h
16. 2000: 59:05 Lance Armstrong 21.83 km/h
17. 2009: 59:05 Vincenzo Nibali 21.83 km/h
18. 1994: 59:07 Pascal Lino 21.82 km/h
19. 2009: 59:10 Bradley Wiggins 21.80 km/h
20. 2013: 59:29 Nairo Quintana 21.69 km/h

 

[Taxus4a]

Simple question to any sky fans - name one, just one rider over a hundred years who has improved as suddenly and dramatically as froome...

When Froome go first time to the Tourm conidering when he started cycling, considering he came from Africa, he did amazing performances, and along that year as well, he was close to win an ITT to Kloden,...

He had two bad years later, but with crash for instantces, and one of them with SKY.

He had Bilharzia, so if you can fight againts that disease, you can improve a lot.

Of course he is an special case, but for that issue the only reason is doping...

As well, about 2009-2012, a lot of riders that were clean, or doping produces small effect on them compared to another ones, started to get better results...among them, colombian and frech riders.

 

[bewildered]

Nobody can prove a rider is clean. I think that's been well established. But there's no need because Taxus knows, he knows that all riders don't dope because there is no doping in pro cycling today. Will you please stop spewing this nonsense.

 

[sittingbison]

Taxus4a, just stop please. This is beyond ridiculous even for the Clinic, and indeed has been covered at length approximately ten times already.

Engage in a genuine conversation....or not. The choice is yours

cheers
bison

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I think the biological passport has reduced the doping (and/or it's effects) but it's still there and they have become better at manipulating the system. That's where I think Sky had the advantage for a couple of years but now others have (as expected) caught up. Of course, you always have the question of new products/methods but still you can't let your bio values fluctuate too much.

This is assuming the bio passports are actually analyzed and correct values are fed into the system...

Except Wiggo 2009 was pre-Sky.

I'd also like to understand how Sky 2010 are matching any other team who already have 2 years of ABP practice to beat the system. They are not only beating those teams, but being experts with the ABP from the get go.

Given the utter mess they have made of things during their time - no wind tunnel for Froome, burning riders out, etc.

 

[Archibald]

What talented rider who is clean has even approached his times? I can't think of any.

According to the Two Daves (Brailsford n Walsh) it's senor Froome. However the Two Daves, unlike the Two Ronnies, are trying to be serious...

Natural progression is one factor. I'm not saying it explains everything and (continued) doping is obviously another (confounding) factor.

I think Tyler answered this one regarding how it's being done with lower doping levels - 'they have their doctors, we have ours. And ours are better'
I'm sure there's been some advancement in the medical world since the early 2000s, no?

 

[42x16ss]

I am not an sky fan, I say today there is not doping in pro cycling, and I know that, it is not something that I think, it is something I know, but it is something impossible to prove totally. Of course, it would be always some people who is going to take risks, and maybe some teams could do somthing in an small scale. I dont know, I hope no, but no more.

Excellent, better let the UCI know that they don't need to bother with anti doping anymore. Might as well disband WADA too while we're at it. Look at the amount of AAF's and bio-passport cases that the UCI has been willing to process then say that again.

 

[sittingbison]

Parkers post moved to Mods thread

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Mayo's Ventoux time was a time trial of just the mountain in the Dauphine anyway. Froome's time is up there with confirmed dopers if you take out the times from time trials.

1. 1994: 57:34 Marco Pantani 22.41 km/h
2. 2009: 58:45 Andy Schleck 21.96 km/h
3. 2009: 58:45 Alberto Contador 21.96 km/h
4. 2009: 58:48 Lance Armstrong 21.94 km/h
5. 2009: 58:50 Fränk Schleck 21.93 km/h
6. 2009: 58:53 Roman Kreuziger 21.91 km/h
7. 2002: 59:00 Lance Armstrong 21.86 km/h
8. 2013: 59:00 Chris Froome 21.86 km/h
9. 1994: 59:02 Richard Virenque 21.85 km/h
10. 1994: 59:02 Armand De Las Cuevas 21.85 km/h
11. 1994: 59:02 Luc Leblanc 21.85 km/h
12. 1994: 59:02 Miguel Indurain 21.85 km/h
13. 1994: 59:02 Roberto Conti 21.85 km/h
14. 2009: 59:03 Franco Pellizotti 21.85 km/h
15. 2000: 59:05 Marco Pantani 21.83 km/h
16. 2000: 59:05 Lance Armstrong 21.83 km/h
17. 2009: 59:05 Vincenzo Nibali 21.83 km/h
18. 1994: 59:07 Pascal Lino 21.82 km/h
19. 2009: 59:10 Bradley Wiggins 21.80 km/h
20. 2013: 59:29 Nairo Quintana 21.69 km/h

You're not taking into account the tailwind...

*Sit's back with a bag of popcorn.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I am not an sky fan, I say today there is not doping in pro cycling, and I know that, it is not something that I think, it is something I know, but it is something impossible to prove totally. Of course, it would be always some people who is going to take risks, and maybe some teams could do somthing in an small scale. I dont know, I hope no, but no more.

Funny, a guy who can't piece together a coherent sentence in English knows the saying "small scale,"

Mods, if you haven't worked out that this guy is PURE trollkraft (and bad trollkraft at that) yet, I am sorely disappointed. It's beyond absurd. Yea, he's not a native English speaker, that's the reason for his atrocious sentences...

 

[kingjr]

You think he is a native english speaker?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You think he is a native english speaker?

Absolutely.

 

[kingjr]

Absolutely.

You also think this is not genuine, but part of the trollplan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KhpZs_Bhw&feature=em-upload_owner&app=desktop&hd=1

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You also think this is not genuine, but part of the trollplan?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8KhpZs_Bhw&feature=em-upload_owner&app=desktop&hd=1

He.Is.A.Troll.

 

[kingjr]

He.Is.A.Troll.

So that is a yes?