Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[JackRabbitSlims]

Little Ritchie needs to spend the "off Season" with Mick & Cadel, then you'll see a peak in performance.
Sky was / is sooooo 2013!!

 

[Afrank]

Rest day at the Vuelta...so what do we think of Froome so far in terms of form? Is he way off his 2013 form, to the point where other riders can hang with him, or even drop him, or did some of these guys (Contador in particular) step up their own "enhancements" to be able to keep up?

I'm just wondering in 2015, should we expect Froome to come back with a vengeance and once again destroy everyone with ease, or are the others starting to step up their own programs, and we could see more competitive high-octane racing?

I think he's probably been behind his 2013 form all year. Dauphine being the point where he got closest to it, and is now getting back to around that level again, but still just below Dauphine form.

I expect he'll be better in 2015, but really you never know with Froome. He's quite the enigma, in more ways then just form.

 

[robow7]

He's quite the enigma, in more ways then just form.

Yes, he's an enigma, a mystery wrapped in a riddle

 

[laurel1969]

There's also the fact that he is riding faster than 99% of dopers ever managed and was able last year to maintain a 6 month long super peak in which he showed total immunity from fatigue, which anyone who doens't believe in fairytales would tell you is absolutely impossible without massive doping.

Yep. I think it would be very very long odds for him to be a clean rider.

 

[laurel1969]

Yes, he's an enigma, a mystery wrapped in a riddle

Is he Russian?

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Yes, he's an enigma, a mystery wrapped in a riddle

Wrong country, Wrong Movie......but nice attempt

 

[D-Queued]

There's also the fact that he is riding faster than 99% of dopers ever managed and was able last year to maintain a 6 month long super peak in which he showed total immunity from fatigue, which anyone who doens't believe in fairytales would tell you is absolutely impossible without massive doping.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

I have to say, though, I am just loving the NBC Universal Sports coverage and Todd Gogulski's "I don't know where Froome gets that power from..."

That after going on and on about how he expects Froome to falter, and not get stronger as the stages get harder and harder, one after the next.

It is a return to the theater of the absurd that we so enjoy in professional cycling. Admittedly, Froome's cadence is a little low. Perhaps focusing on that will offer us next year's marginal gains.

Dave.

 

[Walkman]

There's also the fact that he is riding faster than 99% of dopers ever managed and was able last year to maintain a 6 month long super peak in which he showed total immunity from fatigue, which anyone who doens't believe in fairytales would tell you is absolutely impossible without massive doping.

Why did you never say these things when Contador dominated the cycling stage a few years ago?

 

[laurel1969]

Why did you never say these things when Contador dominated the cycling stage a few years ago?

Not wanting to speak for the poster you are quoting, but remember that Contador came before the Lance story blew up in public with Landis ratting which really contributed to an increase in scepticism and cynicism.

I suppose Contador fits the long-standing model of consistently talented doper. Kind of flies under the radar compared to Froome who sets all the alarm bells ringing.

 

[Hawkwood]

That's a very weird argument.

Yeah you are right, if Froome had showed more talent from the start more people would have said he always had talent.

But he didn't show that talent. Or anything resembling that talent. So what's the point you are trying to make?

Its sort of like saying - if Armstrong had been born with more talent he wouldn't have had to dope to win all those Tours. And then all those haters would have been wrong when they acused him of doping mwahahahahahahaha.

Right, but that is some weird alternative fantasy.

The fact is Froome showed no talent for most of his career then one day exploded and became the best.

So playing - lets pretend he showed talent, carries no relevance to the discussion.

What's so weird about it? How do we establish who has genuine `talent' when we don't know in most cases how early riders started doping in their careers. I'm looking at an old Cycling Weekly mag from Nov 1996, it's got an interview with Max Sciandri in it. He doesn't mention EPO, but sort of hints at it. He does state `...amateurs are using certain products, probably even juniors. I'm saying this because I'm sick of it'. So looking at those juniors coming through in 1996, some of whom may have turned pro around 2000-2002, how on earth could you gauge who had real `talent', or who had access to drugs and was a good responder? With the drugs that have emerged in the last 25 years haven't we got to the point where it's very difficulty to establish who has the real, natural talent?

 

[laurel1969]

I think it is hard to say. Its almost impossible to say because clean talented riders don't stand a chance against moderate talents who are chemically assisted.

What is certain is that Froome responded to something in the summer of 2011. Was it training? Was it nutrition? Was it both of those added to confidence gained through experience? Or was it all of those and some drugs...

The obvious one is the drugs. I might be doing him a massive disservice, but I doubt it.

 

[the sceptic]

What's so weird about it? How do we establish who has genuine `talent' when we don't know in most cases how early riders started doping in their careers. I'm looking at an old Cycling Weekly mag from Nov 1996, it's got an interview with Max Sciandri in it. He doesn't mention EPO, but sort of hints at it. He does state `...amateurs are using certain products, probably even juniors. I'm saying this because I'm sick of it'. So looking at those juniors coming through in 1996, some of whom may have turned pro around 2000-2002, how on earth could you gauge who had real `talent', or who had access to drugs and was a good responder? With the drugs that have emerged in the last 25 years haven't we got to the point where it's very difficulty to establish who has the real, natural talent?

Of course its not easy to know who the real talents are. But its easy to know that Froome never had any talent before he started doping. Bottom level domestique, whose dream was to ride grand tours. Not good enough for a team like sky.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What's so weird about it? How do we establish who has genuine `talent' when we don't know in most cases how early riders started doping in their careers. I'm looking at an old Cycling Weekly mag from Nov 1996, it's got an interview with Max Sciandri in it. He doesn't mention EPO, but sort of hints at it. He does state `...amateurs are using certain products, probably even juniors. I'm saying this because I'm sick of it'. So looking at those juniors coming through in 1996, some of whom may have turned pro around 2000-2002, how on earth could you gauge who had real `talent', or who had access to drugs and was a good responder? With the drugs that have emerged in the last 25 years haven't we got to the point where it's very difficulty to establish who has the real, natural talent?

Maximilliano of the famous Checcini 1 - 2 -3 at the Atlanta Olympics? Yeah, I would take him as a reference point...

 

[D-Queued]

Of course its not easy to know who the real talents are. But its easy to know that Froome never had any talent before he started doping. Bottom level domestique, whose dream was to ride grand tours. Not good enough for a team like sky.

AHA!!

Got 'em.

Isn't pushing illegal under UCI's current rules?

Dave.

 

[fowlyetti]

Do you believe in aliens?
No. I think if there were aliens, we’d 100% have seen them by now.

Read more at http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,31182_9462825,00.html#wXbRAOj8mYRPwmFz.99

 

[roundabout]

Maximilliano of the famous Checcini 1 - 2 -3 at the Atlanta Olympics? Yeah, I would take him as a reference point...

That's good to know.

So was he wrong?

 

[Granville57]

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,31182_9462825,00.html#wXbRAOj8mYRPwmFz.99[/url]

This part was weird:

Have you ever Google’d yourself?

Yes I have before, and it’s amazing some of the stuff that comes up – and pretty scary as well – there’s some things on there that I didn’t even know about myself. It turns out that I had something called Bilharzia at one point.

 

[SeriousSam]

Have you ever Google’d yourself?

Yes I have before, and it’s amazing some of the stuff that comes up – and pretty scary as well – there’s some things on there that I didn’t even know about myself. Most of it’s amusing though.

Is he referring to this thread?

 

[roundabout]

What is your favourite meal to cook?
A really good cut of fillet steak that’s been thrown on the griddle for a few seconds and sizzled on either side. They’re easy to cook and taste delicious.

Cycling related obviously

 

[go crazy]

Of course its not easy to know who the real talents are. But its easy to know that Froome never had any talent before he started doping. Bottom level domestique, whose dream was to ride grand tours. Not good enough for a team like sky.

Froome weighs exactly half of what he was in that pic...

 

[the sceptic]

Cycling related obviously

rabbit steak?

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think it is hard to say. Its almost impossible to say because clean talented riders don't stand a chance against moderate talents who are chemically assisted.

I would add a distinction here because we have learned that most of the challenge in doping is finding the right combination that generates a super-response. So, it's not just doping per se, but being a responder to the protocol. JV's own story is a perfect example. The EPO helped, but did not help him universally.

What is certain is that Froome responded to something in the summer of 2011. Was it training? Was it nutrition? Was it both of those added to confidence gained through experience? Or was it all of those and some drugs...

This is a nice intellectual exercise. Training gains at an elite level resembles the right side of an asymptotic curve. Froome's transformation shatters that.
-If it was training, then it is/was revolutionary. That would not stay secret.
-If it was nutrition, then it is/was revolutionary. We know that does not stay secret.

It's doping. Though, 2014 sure seems different.

 

[LaFlorecita]

rabbit steak?

Easy to cook and taste delicious (his python can confirm)

 

[Afrank]

This part was weird:

Have you ever Google’d yourself?

Yes I have before, and it’s amazing some of the stuff that comes up – and pretty scary as well – there’s some things on there that I didn’t even know about myself. It turns out that I had something called Bilharzia at one point.

screen shot of it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is he referring to this thread?

This is why Froome gets himself into so much trouble in the clinic. He's just poking the bear and he knows it.

Very interesting to see the "I could win 7 grand tours and that proves I'm clean" Froome is on the rebound. Not only is the alien back, but the PR alien too.