Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

you miss the point...he can't say "scr3w you" because he is not the master of his own destiny...he needs others to be able to perform and so must do whatever others urge him to do....if he really was that good that is exactly what he would say.......

 

[zalacain]

Froome is doing tests at GSK Human Performance. Says results will be shared with the public. What angle is he playing here?

Coulddn't possibly be testing the effectiveness of this could he?
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/SmokingCOPD/45515

 

[zalacain]

Re:

Anyone notice that he's doing the testing at GSK the developers of GW1516?

AICAR's best friend

 

[GW15something]

Re: Re:

So, now that Froome is confirmed for the Vuelta...what does he do? Back off a little and appear more "human"?

I'm thinking that someone else other than him is going to win in an effort to say "Hey, he didn't win the Vuelta...he's only human! We're cleans...move along!"

Exactly how I see it. They and their psycho fans are so desperate to push the - oh look, he didn't win every stage of the race, he actually only finished top 5 on some of them - we never saw that in the doped era.

I would think anyone that has to train as hard as these guys do (regardless of whether they are Sky or not/doping or not) is going to do their best to win. Throwing a race after all that work doesn't make any sense to me.

67kg was his recorded weight.

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

you miss the point...he can't say "scr3w you" because he is not the master of his own destiny...he needs others to be able to perform and so must do whatever others urge him to do....if he really was that good that is exactly what he would say.......

Of course he could say screw you. For some strange reason, Sky or Froome feel the need to do the impossible and convince people that you can prove a negative, in spite of their own comments otherwise. Farcanal and others commenting on this being a complete waste of time and money are right - the narrative here already shows that people are discounting (or worse) the results before they are even out there. The only way the doubters would be convinced is to follow Froome around 24x7 for a few years while in competition. Even then it wouldn't satisfy all of them

 

[veganrob]

It really is very simple what the doubters want. Pre transformation physiological testing results to compare to the most likely doctored results which will be made public from these. Why wait several months for the results to be made public. I had mine the next day.
It is a sham which is what Team Sky is all about. Transparency Bull ****

 

[Benotti69]

British media are absolute fanboys. Why has no one questioned the 'master of detail' Brailsfraud about this? Supposedly they are the ,masters of ringing every last drop of gains out of legitimate training and diet etc, so these tests would be done a few times a year to ensure the gains are being gotten.

what a joke?

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

Other than a crooked sign that reads Human Performance how do people know this is GSK? I would expect more lab stuff. Why have a water bottle? I had more stuff hooked up to me for a bike fitting.

How do we know that's Chris Froome? Maybe, it's a body double or lookalike. Maybe, it's filmed at Sky HQ on a green screen.

It's probably the clockwork Froome.................obviously they've Photoshopped out the huge key sticking out of his back !

Come to think of it, he does look a bit like Inspector Gadget.........

 

[Cycle Chic]

Again - if he's put on 5 or 6 kgs isnt that going to lower his vo2 ?

 

[Lyon]

Re:

Anyone notice that he's doing the testing at GSK the developers of GW1516?

Cycling's coming home.

 

[adamfo]

Re:

British media are absolute fanboys. Why has no one questioned the 'master of detail' Brailsfraud about this? Supposedly they are the ,masters of ringing every last drop of gains out of legitimate training and diet etc, so these tests would be done a few times a year to ensure the gains are being gotten.

what a joke?

Who says Sky don't test certain things ?

 

[adamfo]

Re:

Again - if he's put on 5 or 6 kgs isnt that going to lower his vo2 ?

He looks the same weight to me

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Who says Sky don't test certain things ?

Brailsford. Ad nauseam.

 

[cantpedal]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

Exactly!

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

Exactly!

They're not doing it to placate any legitimate critics, they're doing it to make the largely uninformed fans they already have feel good about what they're watching. They're trying to sell what they've been offering to the receptive part of the market.

If they wanted to address real critique...well never mind. They have no interest whatsoever in addressing that, because they can't.

 

[Froomster]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

Exactly!

They're not doing it to placate any legitimate critics, they're doing it to make the largely uninformed fans they already have feel good about what they're watching. They're trying to sell what they've been offering to the receptive part of the market.

If they wanted to address real critique...well never mind. They have no interest whatsoever in addressing that, because they can't.

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

They're not doing it to placate any legitimate critics, they're doing it to make the largely uninformed fans they already have feel good about what they're watching. They're trying to sell what they've been offering to the receptive part of the market.

If they wanted to address real critique...well never mind. They have no interest whatsoever in addressing that, because they can't.

this

watch G win the Giro and ride in the campa
#gordonstoun
#muscularchristianityFTW
#chariotsoffire

 

[blackcat]

moved from other thread


...

you see DearWiggo, around 2008, when Brailsford is putting the scaffolding and infrastructure together for a nascent team, sure Sky were already lined up, Brailsford talked about Froome and his testing.

He DID.

He did indeed. And he mentioned Froome having the potential for GC and winning. This was circa 2008, after Froomes first two Barlo years and the debut at the Tour, which I think was impressive. Think he only started in 2008 on Barlo, anyway, my point, if not my memory, still stands.

And I did get on Froome, and looked over his results, and remembered his impressive first Tour in new light. And I know John Robertson's Barlo, they had a good "supplementation program" like all the other teams. Before Claudio Corti who whoever was the Saeco guy, came in and evicted Robertson in the putsch.

But the testing existed in British Cycling. I am not sure when the British citizenship and passport happened, but prolly around this time they put this plan into action.

I never went as far to really look at his racing in Soutundefinedh Africa. I know they have those two tours, but one finished up around 2009ish, something like the Tinatech Tour, the name of the sponsor is not remembered correctly. Cant remember the other race, the older traditional tour. There is good racing and racers in South Africa.

But ofcourse there was a test, and it is around 08ish, maybe December 07ish, when Brailsford got him in from Aigle and the Le Monde Centre du Cyclisme or whatever the world cycling centre in Aigle is calledundefined

 

[Farcanal]

Re: Re:

[quote="


I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

Exactly!

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

....and by logical extension of your argument, anybody who wins any tour must be doping because he is beating other people who are/have doped - because the 'numbers' you talk about are irrelevant rubbish and certainly don't amount to evidence or even facts. Your nonsense deserves no further comment/answer.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Impressive how?

Finishing 2:22' down on the winner is not what I call impressive.

So what if there was a test and Brailsford reckoned he could win. Theze said Froome was like friggin Hinault. 2:22 down on the winner.

He only finished 2 seconds on GC in front of Porte, who was riding for Praties, at the SunTour later that year.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Impressive how?

Finishing 2:22' down on the winner is not what I call impressive.

So what if there was a test and Brailsford reckoned he could win. Theze said Froome was like friggin Hinault. 2:22 down on the winner.

He only finished 2 seconds on GC in front of Porte, who was riding for Praties, at the SunTour later that year.

his Tour de France debut Wiggo. I know John Robertson of Barloworld had them doped, and he was not as impressive as Kansta Sioutsou, but just give me this. It was a good ride for the 23yo.

But, I never knew about his Gran Fondo career in South Africa, atleast allow me that concession. That Gran Fondo career is absurd.

very much, great responder, donkey racehorse paradigm of PED responsivity.


donkey

racehorse

 

[adamfo]

Re: Re:

Does anyone understand what the heck this VroomTest at Glaxo is supposed to "prove"? Imagine Uniballer doing the same - they would produce any number they want, no problem to go as low as needed (and if it looks incompatible with wattage from Tour estimates, then "fatigue" argument covers it all). Or do they want to prove Vroome can do even more than he already showed?

It could be a secret plan by Murdoch and Co to give the Clinic a new conspiracy to unravel

I can't understand for one second why he's bothering with all this. A complete waste of time and money. No matter what is released, whether it's this data, old data, old toe nail clippings whatever, the haters are gonna keep hating. Anything that shows they might be wrong will be flawed, incomplete or corrupted by money in their opinion. There is no reason or factual information in their argument and any data, is and will be just trawled through to find the most miniscule inconsistency which will assist their bile to keep flowing.

I would just say 'scr3w you lot, you catch me' then let all the half baked scientists argue, speculate and write what they want. After all, the fuss during the Tour got Froome and Sky much more publicity than just the win on its own, and not all negative. That's what pro cycling is about, expensive billboards, so work with it.

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

Jeeze talk about a non sequitur....

 

[Handy Bendy Ghandi]

Re: Re:

Per his twitter feed, the physiological testing is occuring today. Short video clip posted.

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/633278404738031616

Good lord, he looks even worse on rollers than on the road, if such were possible.

Why does anyone care about this? If I understand correctly, it's Sky doing the testing on a guy we know is performing at a certain level. What on earth is this supposed to prove? They already have released data which is known to be false on its face.

More grist for the believers I imagine...

No axe to grind, but I'm interested whether this data you speak of has been publicly shown to be false...........or whether it's "known" to be false by this forum ?

Not sure how this forum isn't public, but I'd point you to this: Science of Sport : Great power, great responsibility. Less power, greater speeds

It is thus absolutely inconceivable that a ride of that level, where Froome was supreme on the day, was only at 5.78 W/kg.

They go on to point out that the power numbers only work if the weight numbers cited were incorrect, as they obviously were to anyone paying attention. Froome claimed to be at 64kg last year and 66 at the Dauphine with more to lose this year. So they obviously lied about the weight data and quite likely fudged the adjustment for the elliptical cranks. But clearly something was way off and not explained.

Can I prove they lied? No. Is it obvious to anyone looking at this rationally that they lied? Yes. Was it an honest error? An honest error that fits perfectly into their narrative and covers a wildly suspicious performance when the data is corrected? If you buy that I've got a bridge to sell...

That’s a very interesting site……..I’m all for detailed empirical analysis that comes to a considered opinion based on a sound rationale.

As I said, I have no particular axe to grind (as a Welshman, I’m more inclined to “support” Geraint Thomas than anyone else)………….but I do like my cycling and find this place quite intriguing. It was the boldness of the statement “shown to be false” that struck me since, if it were widely acknowledged that Sky had issued deliberately falsified or tailored data, then the media outside the UK would be jerking themselves into a frenzied ejaculation of outrage and indignation………..and I haven’t seen anything (or heard much muffled grunting) ?

Anyway, to be honest, I can’t get too excited by it all………………..cheating is wrong in any sport, but I appreciate that, where there’s money (and future financial security) involved, to varying degrees professional atheletes will go as far as they can to win….unless you’re Christophe Bassons…..and take the risk of being uncovered. Whatever happens, these guys still have to ride 150Km odd, then finish with 10Km up a 12% incline…………….I couldn’t even manage the warmup these days !

There’s low life in high places (just look at the current UK Government) but, at least since Voldemort’s departure, cycling doesn’t seem to have any really offensive villians…………..

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yep, the fact remains that he's just destroyed convicted dopers, putting in numbers on certain stages which compare with convicted dopers from the past, in a sport where every year a large number of dopers get caught, leading to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that he's also just destroyed a field which includes a substantial number of dopers who didn't get caught this time.

Jeeze talk about a non sequitur....

Exactly Adamfo...especially when we are talking about a rider who was this good early 2011

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/04/DBgraphhires1.jpg

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Per his twitter feed, the physiological testing is occuring today. Short video clip posted.

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/633278404738031616

Good lord, he looks even worse on rollers than on the road, if such were possible.

Why does anyone care about this? If I understand correctly, it's Sky doing the testing on a guy we know is performing at a certain level. What on earth is this supposed to prove? They already have released data which is known to be false on its face.

More grist for the believers I imagine...

No axe to grind, but I'm interested whether this data you speak of has been publicly shown to be false...........or whether it's "known" to be false by this forum ?

Not sure how this forum isn't public, but I'd point you to this: Science of Sport : Great power, great responsibility. Less power, greater speeds

It is thus absolutely inconceivable that a ride of that level, where Froome was supreme on the day, was only at 5.78 W/kg.

They go on to point out that the power numbers only work if the weight numbers cited were incorrect, as they obviously were to anyone paying attention. Froome claimed to be at 64kg last year and 66 at the Dauphine with more to lose this year. So they obviously lied about the weight data and quite likely fudged the adjustment for the elliptical cranks. But clearly something was way off and not explained.

Can I prove they lied? No. Is it obvious to anyone looking at this rationally that they lied? Yes. Was it an honest error? An honest error that fits perfectly into their narrative and covers a wildly suspicious performance when the data is corrected? If you buy that I've got a bridge to sell...

That’s a very interesting site……..I’m all for detailed empirical analysis that comes to a considered opinion based on a sound rationale.

As I said, I have no particular axe to grind (as a Welshman, I’m more inclined to “support” Geraint Thomas than anyone else)………….but I do like my cycling and find this place quite intriguing. It was the boldness of the statement “shown to be false” that struck me since, if it were widely acknowledged that Sky had issued deliberately falsified or tailored data, then the media outside the UK would be jerking themselves into a frenzied ejaculation of outrage and indignation………..and I haven’t seen anything (or heard much muffled grunting) ?

Anyway, to be honest, I can’t get too excited by it all………………..cheating is wrong in any sport, but I appreciate that, where there’s money (and future financial security) involved, to varying degrees professional atheletes will go as far as they can to win….unless you’re Christophe Bassons…..and take the risk of being uncovered. Whatever happens, these guys still have to ride 150Km odd, then finish with 10Km up a 12% incline…………….I couldn’t even manage the warmup these days !

There’s low life in high places (just look at the current UK Government) but, at least since Voldemort’s departure, cycling doesn’t seem to have any really offensive villians…………..

Froome told BBC radio 4 he had released "ALL" his medical info......a gold star if you can find me 'any'....