Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[luckyboy]

New video - Vuelta 2014 La Farrapona
http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/news/80/SkyLeaks2

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Ot is possible to measure andn take some conclusion, but they used methods that are notr cientific, used 15 years ago, with a lot of lacks...

They for instance talked about ventopux and dindt see videos of how wind was other years and how was in 2013.. 2013 was one of the years wind was more tailwiind at the end (was crosswind, what with corners sometimes tail, some time headwind...other years is always headwind...

if you compare numbers and you dont put a lot of thing intio consideration, that is wortless.
but a lot opf people get the conclusion they look for, and how is a lot of people and everything is agree, thet think they are agree.

But of course thay are wrong.

cheers!

Yep I agree. Usually it doesn't take some unknown feature of the body to explain things. Usually it's just a faulty premise that has snuck into the argument. But in my opinion, those who think they know everything are the ones that are least likely to find errors in their argumentation. They lack the curiosity to look seriously at other explanations.

Lol go on then. What are the errors? Since you are so open minded you are in a perfect position to find them. Tell us.

I don't know enough about this to find errors and back them up with a solid arguments that would look scientifically valid. I also don't feel it's worth my time. But I do know how to spot people or arguments that appear closed minded. I do also know enough about cycling to know that it's rare for the conditions of a climb to be the same over different years, stage designs and stage of the Race.

 

[mysterwatt]

After yesterday's Froome performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cYgRnfFDA

So many pages to read

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Well done Froomey and sky, as well as movistar. As for people who say this is impossible. I'm sorry you think everything in the human body is a known and measured scientific quantity.

Ot is possible to measure andn take some conclusion, but they used methods that are notr cientific, used 15 years ago, with a lot of lacks...

They for instance talked about ventopux and dindt see videos of how wind was other years and how was in 2013.. 2013 was one of the years wind was more tailwiind at the end (was crosswind, what with corners sometimes tail, some time headwind...other years is always headwind...

if you compare numbers and you dont put a lot of thing intio consideration, that is wortless.
but a lot opf people get the conclusion they look for, and how is a lot of people and everything is agree, thet think they are agree.

But of course thay are wrong.

cheers!

Yep I agree. Usually it doesn't take some unknown feature of the body to explain things. Usually it's just a faulty premise that has snuck into the argument. But in my opinion, those who think they know everything are the ones that are least likely to find errors in their argumentation. They lack the curiosity to look seriously at other explanations.

Lol go on then. What are the errors? Since you are so open minded you are in a perfect position to find them. Tell us.

I don't know enough about this to find errors and back them up with a solid arguments that would look scientifically valid. I also don't feel it's worth my time. But I do know how to spot people or arguments that appear closed minded. I do also know enough about cycling to know that it's rare for the conditions of a climb to be the same over different years, stage designs and stage of the Race.

Oh. So you are merely trying to find errors in 1 tiny aspect of our argument - Froome's performance yesterday.

Meanwhile, we have his self confessed beating Armstrong on Madone. Him matching Armstrong on 2 other climbs - A sufficiently large sample to make it it highly unlikely that he simply gets favourable conditions every single time. As well as the fact that he beat Quintana and others who did the same climb on the same day by over a minute and most over 2.

There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike, the hiring of multiple dopers, the lies, the deceit, the claims about marginal gains etc etc.

So if you think you've found "errors" by pointing out that hypothetically a climb might have more favourable conditions one year to another (even though those conditions are equally likely to be less favourable) then you simply aren't operating at the same mental capacity as the posters you are trying to attack. Sorry if it comes off as an insult, but you are making extremely stupid posts that do nothing to advance your argument and acting like you've made some sort of valid contribution.

 

[frenchfry]

In a strange way I am hoping that Froome goes full genius again today, and every day until the end of the tour.

 

[Bronstein]

Re:

In a strange way I am hoping that Froome goes full genius again today, and every day until the end of the tour.

I hope he actually peaks for the third week. I'm sure he wants to make amends for Alpe d'Huez 2013.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Oh. So you are merely trying to find errors in 1 tiny aspect of our argument - Froome's performance yesterday.

Meanwhile, we have his self confessed beating Armstrong on Madone. Him matching Armstrong on 2 other climbs - A sufficiently large sample to make it it highly unlikely that he simply gets favourable conditions every single time. As well as the fact that he beat Quintana and others who did the same climb on the same day by over a minute and most over 2.

There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike, the hiring of multiple dopers, the lies, the deceit, the claims about marginal gains etc etc.

So if you think you've found "errors" by pointing out that hypothetically a climb might have more favourable conditions one year to another (even though those conditions are equally likely to be less favourable) then you simply aren't operating at the same mental capacity as the posters you are trying to attack. Sorry if it comes off as an insult, but you are making extremely stupid posts that do nothing to advance your argument and acting like you've made some sort of valid contribution.

I have made a valid contribution. It's not my problem that you don't like it/don't agree with it or don't understand it. That is up to you.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Oh. So you are merely trying to find errors in 1 tiny aspect of our argument - Froome's performance yesterday.

Meanwhile, we have his self confessed beating Armstrong on Madone. Him matching Armstrong on 2 other climbs - A sufficiently large sample to make it it highly unlikely that he simply gets favourable conditions every single time. As well as the fact that he beat Quintana and others who did the same climb on the same day by over a minute and most over 2.

There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike, the hiring of multiple dopers, the lies, the deceit, the claims about marginal gains etc etc.

So if you think you've found "errors" by pointing out that hypothetically a climb might have more favourable conditions one year to another (even though those conditions are equally likely to be less favourable) then you simply aren't operating at the same mental capacity as the posters you are trying to attack. Sorry if it comes off as an insult, but you are making extremely stupid posts that do nothing to advance your argument and acting like you've made some sort of valid contribution.

I have made a valid contribution. It's not my problem that you don't like it/don't agree with it or don't understand it. That is up to you.

You haven't addressed any of the arguments against Froome, you just said that mountains might hypothetically be different, and then said thats an error on the part of the sceptics (even though its a hypothetical error, not a proven one).
So no, no valid contribution.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Somebody who saw it on "Vive le vélo" may confirm.

I just saw someone else mention it... he's becoming as much of a bully as Lance..

Much was made about the stealing rabbits from toddlers to feed to snakes thing when that emerged. And it was shocking how proud Froome is about that,more than his TDF wins it seems, and how totally unmoved he was both by the squeals of the baby rabbits and to see the toddlers upset about losing their pets. Remember pythons don't eat dead prey so its not like you kill the poor thing and feed it, instead its more like the victims in the Minotaur story, you release them into the maze and watch their terror as they await what they can't escape. And Froome always watched.

I've no delusions about how cruel the natural world is and how powerless humans are to stop it, but I strongly feel at best we should not interfere and physically feed smaller powerless creatures, babies at that, to infinitely more powerful predators, for no real reason. If anything, humans should try to minimize the animals pain not maximise it.

Strangely enough, many froome fans on here at the time turned to be very anti animal rights when this story came out, ridiculing those pathetic conspiracy theorists for reacting to it. Personally I cringe when I hear about such a cold blooded sacrifice and this emotion is infinately more powerful than anything Froome can ever make me experience by his riding.

Of course that was just the tip of the iceberg since Froome spent much of his younger life seeking out prey for his snakes, particularly looking for nests of mice so he could feed the entire families to the pythons. Quite sad when one considers the pythons were incapable of showing him any affection anyway. They just existed to exist.
And searching and catching the prey wasn't always just Froome but a family activity.

His self confessed obsession in his early teens was "butterflies". This sounds nice, but what he means by this is running around all day trying to catch them and squish them so he could pin them up on his wall. This was his last "passion" before cycling became his passion.

But in The Climb he also claims that when he was young his brothers would shoot bb gun pellets at a big Turkey they had for a laugh and watch the Turkey attack Froome who at that age was the same size. Then Froome did the same when he was older, only his victim (other than the Turkey) would be the daughter of his au pair (yes, thats right, bullying behaviour directed towards a young girl who is a few years younger than him). He would also "get revenge" on the Turkey by running up to it and scaring it then laughing as it got terrified.

In some ways you can't fully blame a child for being like that, since they might not know better, and clearly the environment he grew up in played a part ( i mean if one of your first memories of your older brothers is them shooting at a poor turkey for laughs, you can see how your surroundings might play a part). But in that case the parents and guardians have a lot to answer for.

Maybe its just me though. There is nothing I feel more strongly about then that no human should ever be cruel towards animals. Its the exact same thing as bullying. Trying to get some small greater satisfaction in your own life by tormenting someone who was born weaker than you, who has no chance to defend themselves and has done you no wrong.

Maybe the adult Froome is a nicer guy. I hope he is. He came off nice to me at first in the 2011 Vuelta and he hasn't really done anything particularly bad re picking on others within the peloton as far as I remember. Not like Wiggins or Lance.
Still when I see the word "bully" mentioned about him I can't help but think back to these stories, especially considering the fact that many bullies in adulthood are known to take it out on animals in their childhood.

A perfectly valid alternative interpretation, of course, being that kids will be kids.

precisely the kind of disgraceful attitude I mentioned in my earlier post. A handful of internet defenders of froome who are willing to justify absolutely anything in order to win this internet battle. Where I grew up and went to school etc, taking out frustrations or having fun by tormenting animals, was unacceptable. I never had such sick thoughts to begin with. why on earth, even as a child would one be unmoved by the suffering of animals let alone facilitate it?
It's actually considered very worrying if a child behaves that way.

But: must, win, internet, battle.

Rubbish, I just can't stand people twisting stuff to fit their own views without considering alternatives. You telling me you didn't do something as a kid that makes you cringe now? I certainly did and I certainly wouldn't behave the same way now (and I saw a lot of other kids do worse who are balanced and respectable adults now).

I'm no defender of Froome, hell, no. We need to understand what happened in 2011.

This sort of amateur psychology adds nothing to the debate.

 

[Stingray34]

The Hitch:
"There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike..."

That's it for me, too. How does Sky do it? Like they've invented sports science all by themselves. For years Froome was a nobody; literally a nameless nobody; then he's suddenly not just a world-beater, but by his stats, the greatest climber in cycling history.

If it smells like rotten fish, it's not exotic French cologne - it's just rotten fish, and Sky and Froome are dirty.

 

[darwin553]

I don't think there is anything more satisfying than seeing Froome win the way he did just for all you (especially the Hitch) sceptics to go crazy!!

 

[Eagle]

Chris Boardman saying Froome "only" put 59 seconds into Quintana

 

[Catwhoorg]

https://twitter.com/mattslaterbbc/status/621206051027820544
Spoke to Froome's camp y'day & as well as independent testing asap, they're asking UCI for his 2007 test data from his time at WCC


That 2007 data would be very interesting as a baseline.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The Hitch:
"There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike..."

That's it for me, too. How does Sky do it? Like they've invented sports science all by themselves. For years Froome was a nobody; literally a nameless nobody; then he's suddenly not just a world-beater, but by his stats, the greatest climber in cycling history.

This is it, in a nutshell. No other time in cycling history, probably not in sports history, have we seen this happen. No one naturally goes from being just average throughout their youth, into adulthood, then suddenly, in their late 20's, the best in history. And yet, that is just what Froome did. This same line of analysis can be applied to many of the other Sky riders as well. Porte, Thomas, Wiggins even. They get to Sky, and are transformed into greatness. Greatness even beyond a doped USPS team.

And we're supposed to believe it's all natural, some secret training?

 

[UlleGigo]

Re:

Chris Boardman saying Froome "only" put 59 seconds into Quintana

Yeah, but the Cannibal won by numerous minutes though, so Froome's clean. Or something.

Even the giganto tit, Paul Sherwin, has latched onto that ridiculous sound bite argument this morning.

 

[Stingray34]

The Hitch:
"There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike..."

That's it for me, too. How does Sky do it? Like they've invented sports science all by themselves. For years Froome was a nobody; literally a nameless nobody; then he's suddenly not just a world-beater, but by his stats, the greatest climber in cycling history.

This is it, in a nutshell. No other time in cycling history, probably not in sports history, have we seen this happen. No one naturally goes from being just average throughout their youth, into adulthood, then suddenly, in their late 20's, the best in history. And yet, that is just what Froome did. This same line of analysis can be applied to many of the other Sky riders as well. Porte, Thomas, Wiggins even. They get to Sky, and are transformed into greatness. Greatness even beyond a doped USPS team.

And we're supposed to believe it's all natural, some secret training?

Alpe, you've long been a rational and respected poster on these forums - that you agree emboldens me to say something's amiss with Team Sky. It seems even Lance thinks we're right! C'mon Lance - tell everything you know; you will win back all of us long-suffering cycling fans because there's no justice until the very top of the administrative tree answers for their involvement.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Oh. So you are merely trying to find errors in 1 tiny aspect of our argument - Froome's performance yesterday.

Meanwhile, we have his self confessed beating Armstrong on Madone. Him matching Armstrong on 2 other climbs - A sufficiently large sample to make it it highly unlikely that he simply gets favourable conditions every single time. As well as the fact that he beat Quintana and others who did the same climb on the same day by over a minute and most over 2.

There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike, the hiring of multiple dopers, the lies, the deceit, the claims about marginal gains etc etc.

So if you think you've found "errors" by pointing out that hypothetically a climb might have more favourable conditions one year to another (even though those conditions are equally likely to be less favourable) then you simply aren't operating at the same mental capacity as the posters you are trying to attack. Sorry if it comes off as an insult, but you are making extremely stupid posts that do nothing to advance your argument and acting like you've made some sort of valid contribution.

I have made a valid contribution. It's not my problem that you don't like it/don't agree with it or don't understand it. That is up to you.

You haven't addressed any of the arguments against Froome, you just said that mountains might hypothetically be different, and then said thats an error on the part of the sceptics (even though its a hypothetical error, not a proven one).
So no, no valid contribution.

If thats all you got out of what I wrote, then I see were the problem is. Thankfully it's your problem, not mine.

 

[seldon71]

As I commented on the neighbour thread - is it Team Sky or is it British Cycling? They are very closely interlinked, but could this be more of a federation- than team-enabled doping?

 

[Stingray34]

Re: Re:

Chris Boardman saying Froome "only" put 59 seconds into Quintana

Yeah, but the Cannibal won by numerous minutes though, so Froome's clean. Or something.

Even the giganto tit, Paul Sherwin, has latched onto that ridiculous sound bite argument this morning.

Giganto tit, Paul Sherwin...that's perfect, in a nutshell!

Sherwin is a privelleged a-hole that's always known what side his toast is buttered (blame the British class system); he will say anything that ensures he keeps on cashing cheques. Remember the Tour 2007 he couldn't stop talking about Lance; he no longer does that.

 

[Brooks Fahey Baldwin]

I think we can all spend the next weeks talking about how utterly ridiculous Froome is.
But there isnt much point to that.

I have always wanted to know what sort of gear Sky have been using and just how they get such questionable gains.
AICAR probably cant tell the whole story.

The most interesting part about Froome is the insanely low heart rate at threshold and of course the fact that the his heart rate doesnt increase with an attack.

Now for some important facts:
- Cardiac ouput follows oxygen consumption very closely during exercise.
- Cardiac ouput increases from resting state are due to increases in stroke volume and heart rate. The two rise together, but up until about 150bpm in well trained athletes. After that the biggest gains come from increases in heart rate rather than stroke volume. By far the biggest increase in cardiac output up to 150bpm odd is due to increases in stroke volume at first.
- World class marathon runners have stroke volumes at rest of around 105ml and 165ml at maximal exercise.

Therefore, what the hell is going on with his cardiac output at maximal efforts?
The stroke volume of his heart must be off the charts.
Its as if he never reaches VO2 max while pedalling. The lack of a rise in HR while power increases also points to an increadible anaerobic threshold.

So what can make that sort of thing happen?

 

[saganftw]

The Hitch:
"There are also the transformation, the coincidence of Sky constantly making average riders godlike..."

That's it for me, too. How does Sky do it? Like they've invented sports science all by themselves. For years Froome was a nobody; literally a nameless nobody; then he's suddenly not just a world-beater, but by his stats, the greatest climber in cycling history.

This is it, in a nutshell. No other time in cycling history, probably not in sports history, have we seen this happen. No one naturally goes from being just average throughout their youth, into adulthood, then suddenly, in their late 20's, the best in history. And yet, that is just what Froome did. This same line of analysis can be applied to many of the other Sky riders as well. Porte, Thomas, Wiggins even. They get to Sky, and are transformed into greatness. Greatness even beyond a doped USPS team.

And we're supposed to believe it's all natural, some secret training?

just for the record,the only other case in sports i remember when literally mr.nobody suddenly was one of the best ever is 1999 NFL season and kurt warner who was nobody in college,didnt get drafted,got cut multiple times before signed by rams as scout team QB - a year later at the age of 28 he sudenly had,considered by many,the best season ever and also won MVP and superbowl...at that time (before rules changed heavily in favor of offense) he was considered one of the best ever and eventually was inducted into HOF

its quite an interesting story,worth watching even if you dont like football

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

https://twitter.com/mattslaterbbc/status/621206051027820544
Spoke to Froome's camp y'day & as well as independent testing asap, they're asking UCI for his 2007 test data from his time at WCC


That 2007 data would be very interesting as a baseline.

You know what. Why not all his Barloworld data?????

Because this is going to be a very controlled PR stunt.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

precisely the kind of disgraceful attitude I mentioned in my earlier post. A handful of internet defenders of froome who are willing to justify absolutely anything in order to win this internet battle. Where I grew up and went to school etc, taking out frustrations or having fun by tormenting animals, was unacceptable. I never had such sick thoughts to begin with. why on earth, even as a child would one be unmoved by the suffering of animals let alone facilitate it?
It's actually considered very worrying if a child behaves that way.

But: must, win, internet, battle.

Interesting post about Froome. Traits of a sociopath.

It's frightening. If my child did that I would seek help immediately. Walsh writes about it in his book and the entirety of UK Team Sky defenders do not appear to bat an eyelid.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

New video - Vuelta 2014 La Farrapona
http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/news/80/SkyLeaks2

Cheers mate. Download started.

 

[Dalakhani]

just for the record,the only other case in sports i remember when literally mr.nobody suddenly was one of the best ever is 1999 NFL season and kurt warner who was nobody in college,didnt get drafted,got cut multiple times before signed by rams as scout team QB - a year later at the age of 28 he sudenly had,considered by many,the best season ever and also won MVP and superbowl...at that time (before rules changed heavily in favor of offense) he was considered one of the best ever and eventually was inducted into HOF

its quite an interesting story,worth watching even if you dont like football

I don't think you can draw too many relevant (to cycling) lessons from that.

QB is very much a skill/mental position and it's quite common for QBs to be mis-evaluated (an example would be Tom Brady, who was picked 199th in his draft class, and is a contender for the greatest of all time).

Cycling is about watts/kilo - and, as such, is very dependent on relatively fixed physical attributes.

That's why Froome needs to lean so heavily on his story about illness. Without that story, even his supporters would struggle to explain what he's doing.