Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.

I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome.

I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?

I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.

We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.

To be fair Benotti, that was Roche's way of dismissing what Kimmage said at the time.

"The doping went on at the back, but not with us talented guys at the front".

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?

I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?

I was referring to the fact the Tucker is plainly dodgy, so why the hell would I give him any credence ?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.

Oh yeah? FInd one from me saying anything over a specific watt is suspicious.

In any case, just because anything over a certain wattage might be suspicious, doesn't mean anything under that is clean. That's actually common sense. For instance, just because everyone who won a gt in the 90's doped, doesn't mean anyone who didn't was clean. Its perfectly possible for total scrubs to dope. In fact if you pay attention to doping you'll know several examples. That's what makes performances like Froome's so ridiculous. IF guys like Frei or 2012 Frank are on heavy cocktails just to compete, how are guys like Froome absolutely destroying the entire sport clean?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

A) What evidence do you have that "most people" wouldn't class it as doping.
B) Why would it matter if "most people" did class it as below doping. Since when are the masses an authority on science?

Spending a year on here reading all the posts about anything over certain W or W/Kg being suspicious - from you and many others.

It seems now that low Watts are suspicious too - make your mind up.

We learn today that anyone can get a place on certain Italian teams if they pay? So yes low watts from untalented guys who dope can be possible and therefore suspicious.

A veteran of the sport can tell you that. Heck Stephen Roche used to claim the guys at the back of the peloton had to dope to keep up with the naturally talented at the front. He claimed that in 1990.

To be fair Benotti, that was Roche's way of dismissing what Kimmage said at the time.

"The doping went on at the back, but not with us talented guys at the front".

Yep, because as we know they dope all the way through the peloton.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!

What's whether it's famous or PR got to do with anything ? The bloke said Froome had a high VO2 max without much high level training back in 2007. Must hard to take I know.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

I did not say French was a real language. But the claim for famous is more PR.

The French, a whole nation now, have antagonism for Froome! Since when. More Sky propaganda!

What's whether it's famous or PR got to do with anything ? The bloke said Froome had a high VO2 max without much high level training back in 2007. Must hard to take I know.

Yeah, he could have had 7 TdFs by now. I am gutted, truly. I mean he had a Hinault high VO2 max. A guy would remember that number for the rest of his life, to be compared at such a young age to a 5 time winner of the TdF, you'd never forget what your vo2max was.

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

I honestly don't know. Did he say that? When did he say that? Before or after vuelta '11? Who was he?
The thing is... The way I see it, If you have the biggest engine in the world, ever, you dont really need tactics. You just need to put down some serious watts and watch the competition fade. His breakthrough GTs have shown us that much. Sh!tty tactics but watts that matched known dopers. Why didn't he just ride everybody out of his wheel on MTFs before la vuelta 2011? His engine would have allowed him to do just that.
There is a perfectly logical answer to all of this, and it's not badzilla and bad tactics.

Found this one, it's via Google translate as it was in French:

http://sautdechaine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/le-mystere-froome-il-ne-vient-pas-de.html

On Rue89, Michel Thèze reveals a little more the result of these famous power tests at CMC. Froome, "it was a big engine. (...) The only one to come to the bearing 14. The majority of riders stops tenth. He had a very slow heart and 'VO2 max [maximum oxygen consumption, a crucial parameter in endurance] between 80 and 85 without being sharpened. As he lost about five kilos since he must be above 85 [the great champions boast a VO2 Max between 85 and 95 note]. "Reached by Chain Jump, Thèze even adds that he joked to the Froome then and said "had tests to Bernard Hinault."

Thanks for the quote.
I'm not really sure what to make of a piece from 2015 quoting a piece from 2013 quoting a guy saying undocumented stuff.
I have indeed made up my mind with regards to where all the current evidence is pointing. It points to doping.
New evidence to suggest otherwise would have to come from completely independent sources and be very specific in documenting Froomes raw talent. I cant see that happening, but I would love to see it.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

Race tactics and 'craft' aren't difficult to understand, particularly in the context of long stage races. On mountaintop finishes, all you have to do is follow wheels and not stay in the red too long. If you struggle to cope with accelerations, you can always ride final climbs like a time trial. You don't need years of experience to comprehend such simple concepts.

Furthermore, prior to the 2011 Vuelta, Froome was rarely in a position where tactics were even relevant. On multi mountain stages, he was often in the grupetto. When he did make it to the final climb with the GC contenders, he was invariably dropped when the pace got serious on the final climb. It wasn't as though Froome was frequently attacking GC contenders on mountaintop finishes, only to suffer from attacking too early or often.

Citing Froome's supposed lack of tactical awareness as a reason for his lack of results during the 2007-2011 period is an indication of just how implausible Froome's transformation was. It is a good example of clutching at straws in an attempt to explain the extremely improbable.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

So famous they are in French and need translation. That they are socalled famous and not in English nor any other language, tells us how famous.

I didn't realise French wasn't a real language and wasn't taken seriously, particularly given the antagonism a lot of France appears to have against Froome. Jesus that's weak even for here. Sorry for interrupting your group think. Give Tucker a kiss for me.

So this was a high profile coach/sport scientist who said it?

Excellent, so that's why Froome and Sky are using this quote and the figures that prompted it to silence the doubters?

Wait a second....

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?

I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?

I was referring to the fact the Tucker is plainly dodgy, so why the hell would I give him any credence ?

show me where tucker is dodgy or is wrong

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

show me where tucker is dodgy or is wrong

Smear the messenger, a well known tactic. Dont worry about it.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Re: Re:

Outputting 388 watts for a longer period (+20min) is high for a person with a low weight (~70kg). If you can push 5.5w/kg like the above for 20min., you're in good shape.

There is no definition of doped watts.

388 watts for 50 mins was enough for Froome to match Armstrong's best climbing time and put 30 secs into Quintana (and 100 into Contador...), that's the most significant point

What were the w/kg for that climb?

Estimation was just under 6w/kg for the two thirds of the climb shielded from the wind http://www.chronoswatts.com/en/watts/21/

Ok, so below what most people class as doping then ...

I think 388 is a high number. I also think that the w/kg table/reference in terms of how good an athlete is, is scewed and most be based on pseudo-science or a doped rider.

If you ride with a powermeter you have an indication of what I mean. I occassionally ride and train with some pro-conti riders and based on their watt-numbers, these (top-tier pros) other numbers seem totally out of this world. And these guys are not in bad shape nor amateurs.

In my own opinion it's very exceptional to push 388 for an hour. I have heard rumors and stories about how many watts some of riders are pushing, and I have a very hard time believing it's legit (clean).

I would say that, if you can push 6-7 w/kg for a longer period (+20min) you're on something. And that goes for everyone.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re: Re:

Race tactics and 'craft' are't difficult to understand,

And yet Rabofail existed for all those years!

Serious question to those that think Leinders was responsible for Froome's transformation.

What was Leinders doing from the start of 2011 to the Vuelta, as we know Froome was abject over this period but was supposedly working with one of the great doping doctors. We know from his post Vuelta 2011 form that he is a good responder so that can't be an excuse why he was so poor for the first half of that year. I find it hard to believe that Sky would start doping him 2 months before the end of a contract so that they have to pay him loads for a new contract, why not do it earlier?

I suspect he must have gone rogue outside the team to get a new contract.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

show me where tucker is dodgy or is wrong

Smear the messenger, a well known tactic. Dont worry about it.

Hmmm..... This is what you tried to do the other day when you attacked the credibility of Swart. Not to mention that your attack was shown to be erroneous.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Would you trust an international sporting federation?

Why not, you clearly trust Tucker, someone who will readily help a team and sport with a well dodgy past. As always money talks no doubt, his 'ethics' ain't so strong then eh ?

I dont remember posting i trust Ross Tucker! But he has been right on Froome. That must hurt.

So you think money talks and you want to defend the richest team in the peloton?

I was referring to the fact the Tucker is plainly dodgy, so why the hell would I give him any credence ?

So now you refer to your attacking of the messenger as a given fact? Tucker is now dodgy because you can't attack what he says, so you attack his character?

NOT convincing. Reprehensible, frankly.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Citing Froome's supposed lack of tactical awareness as a reason for his lack of results during the 2007-2011 period is an indication of just how implausible Froome's transformation was. It is a good example of clutching at straws in an attempt to explain the extremely improbable.

Or a profound cluelessness about racing tactics, or a willingness to ignore the simple facts you've outlined. Truly amazing anyone buys this tripe.

Do tactics help? Of course. Do they make the difference between a mid-pack rider and a completely dominant GT winner. Of course not. One has to be willfully blind not to understand this.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

show me where tucker is dodgy or is wrong

Smear the messenger, a well known tactic. Dont worry about it.

Hmmm..... This is what you tried to do the other day when you attacked the credibility of Swart. Not to mention that your attack was shown to be erroneous.

Care to elaborate on that any further?

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

show me where tucker is dodgy or is wrong

Smear the messenger, a well known tactic. Dont worry about it.

Hmmm..... This is what you tried to do the other day when you attacked the credibility of Swart. Not to mention that your attack was shown to be erroneous.

Oh yes, yes, yes, yes..

 

[djpbaltimore]

You tried to make Swart seem unqualified because he had never heard of Dr. Grappe. I asked for a link which you never supplied. I was referred by another poster to a twitter exchange that said something entirely different.

viewtopic.php?p=1837951#p1837951

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Citing Froome's supposed lack of tactical awareness as a reason for his lack of results during the 2007-2011 period is an indication of just how implausible Froome's transformation was. It is a good example of clutching at straws in an attempt to explain the extremely improbable.

Or a profound cluelessness about racing tactics, or a willingness to ignore the simple facts you've outlined. Truly amazing anyone buys this tripe.

Do tactics help? Of course. Do they make the difference between a mid-pack rider and a completely dominant GT winner. Of course not. One has to be willfully blind not to understand this.

Its funny how during sky tours a lot of the sky superfans rely entirely on a "but you don't understand tactics" message.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I thought the trainer from UCI Swiss camp in 2007 said he had the biggest potential he had ever seen, on a par with Hinualt, which presumably alludes to a high power output. The fact that you've got a big engine aint going to help if your race tactics are idiotic and you lack race craft. Anyway as I said before I don't know why he's bothering as he ain't going to convince the doubters, perhaps he likes winding up posters on here.

This is incredibly naive.

You only have to watch the 2012 Tour to see you are patently incorrect. If you have the power in a Tour you just have to ride hard on the front.

Win.

To my eyes it looked exactly like any of the USPS train-won Tour.

Unless you think there were tactics employed in that Tour, in which case I am all ears. Please expound on them and the difference they made.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re:

You tried to make Swart seem unqualified because he had never heard of Dr. Grappe. I asked for a link which you never supplied. I was referred by another poster to a twitter exchange that said something entirely different.

viewtopic.php?p=1837951#p1837951

I dont see where I am smearing a messenger while I am the one being factuous.