Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

...
Even if he started doping in 2011, the transformation is unbelievable. It just seems unlikely that he was already doping and still had such an incredibly massive transformation.

Then again, if it was any other rider who hadn't undergone a massive transformation and I saw them once in a Barloworld kit, I'd conclude that they were doping

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.

Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011

This is the chubster at the end of 2009 season...

Something he found at Sky allowed him to lose a lot of fat whilst simultaneously increasing his power. I guess we'll never know if it was AICAR or pineapple juice that was responsible.

 

[deeno1975]

Re: Re:

Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011

Vaguely remember some spiel about losing internal fat or similiar, not qualified to say if that is marginal nonsense or not...

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

...
Even if he started doping in 2011, the transformation is unbelievable. It just seems unlikely that he was already doping and still had such an incredibly massive transformation.

Then again, if it was any other rider who hadn't undergone a massive transformation and I saw them once in a Barloworld kit, I'd conclude that they were doping

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.

Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011

It was internal fat according to Swart. lol

 

[shakey88]

is there a Zakarin thread,what with him being a convicted doper or does he not fit the clinic demographic ie not british or linked to Sky?

 

[thehog]

is there a Zakarin thread,what with him being a convicted doper or does he not fit the clinic demographic ie not british or linked to Sky?

Yes there is a thread, you see, caught you out! :lol:

 

[BYOP88]

is there a Zakarin thread,what with him being a convicted doper or does he not fit the clinic demographic ie not british or linked to Sky?

You could use the search function

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29334&hilit=Zakarin

There's even a thread for Simon Yates too.

 

[kwikki]

With no posts for nearly two months

Somebody needs to say something in there, otherwise Shakey will have a point...

 

[Saint Unix]

https://youtu.be/FDImF6mcKWo?t=23

I've been watching this a bit. It looks like Froome sees Sagan going, goes full standing sprint for a couple of seconds without gaining an inch on the rest of the field, and then just gives that up, sits down and goes a bit easier and then drifts away from everyone.

Does it look like a motor or am I just seeing things?

 

[kwikki]

To be honest I think you are seeing what you want to see.

I'm looking at his arms tugging on the bars and his body taut as he uses core strength to brace against the effort of his legs. Looks like a genuine effort to me, and exactly what somebody pulling back a break looks like. His gangly frame and spider-like arms just make everything he does look a bit weird.

 

[Rob27172]

Re:

https://youtu.be/FDImF6mcKWo?t=23

I've been watching this a bit. It looks like Froome sees Sagan going, goes full standing sprint for a couple of seconds without gaining an inch on the rest of the field, and then just gives that up, sits down and goes a bit easier and then drifts away from everyone.

Does it look like a motor or am I just seeing things?

I think that Froome actually doesn't do well when he stands on the pedals and his style is so bad that it doesn't really help him as it would a sprinter like sagan.
He stands up to get the gear turning over then once his legs have got the gear he sits down and pushes in his more natural seated position
if you look at his foreearms and elbows he is straining a fair bit in the effort to get away.

The ridiculous thing is not that he could catch sagan over 20 yards - it is that he could stay with them and then help out at the front over 10km of flat headwind. against a bunch of serious sprint team trains

 

[DanielSong39]

Froome is probably motor-doping but nothing he has done this year comes close to 2013 Ventoux, 2015 La Pierre Saint-Martin, or Cancellara's efforts in the 2010 Paris-Roubaix and Tour of Flanders.

In the above cases, the bike moves in a strange way - as if it was on rails. The friction between the wheels and the road seems to disappear, as the bike starts to accelerate while the rider does not visibly apply more effort. Sudden acceleration is achieved without the bike swaying in any noticeable manner - as 600-1000+ watt surge is achieved without the cyclist applying additional downforce.

Seems like a violation of the law of physics - a result of "marginal gains", perhaps?

 

[DanielSong39]

I think medicinal doping does help a lot, but in most cases it's easy to notice when the rider goes from a steady 400 watts to a 600-1000 watt surge. Also, let's not kid ourselves here - no one could pull 400 watts on the final climb without the medicinal doping in the first place.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

is

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.

Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011

This is the chubster at the end of 2009 season...

Something he found at Sky allowed him to lose a lot of fat whilst simultaneously increasing his power. I guess we'll never know if it was AICAR or pineapple juice that was responsible.[/quote]

wow, what a sumo wrestler... wearing some kind of camelbak below the jersey (or Rambo muscles?)?

 

[thehog]

Re:

https://youtu.be/FDImF6mcKWo?t=23

I've been watching this a bit. It looks like Froome sees Sagan going, goes full standing sprint for a couple of seconds without gaining an inch on the rest of the field, and then just gives that up, sits down and goes a bit easier and then drifts away from everyone.

Does it look like a motor or am I just seeing things?

The Sky rider who swings off the front just before Sagan goes looks at Froome, gets on the radio, Froome then looks at him then goes. It looks odd. I agree with the other poster the fact that he kept it up for 10km into the cross winds was most bizarre.

In saying that, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neepkQjti4A with 11.4km to go after intial break is made, Froome loses some ground to the others, he then simply rides up to the back of Sagan with no body movements in the saddle.

 

[DanielSong39]

His transformation is indeed remarkable, especially in light of who fell by the wayside.

Andy Schleck - injured knee; retired
Tony Martin - went from future GC contender to time trial specialist to also-ran domestique
Vincenzo Nibali - dude's been around forever; people knew about him a decade ago
Tejay van Garderen - thought to be a future star as early as 2010

If you asked me in 2009 or 2010 who was going to be the next GT superstar in cycling I would've bet on any of the guys above before I bet on Chris Froome.

 

[Digger]

Why no Zakarin thread? there is...but that said the essential difference is that there are no moron zakarain fans along to say it's down to diet and marginal gains.
Alberto fans are fine - they know alberto dopes and like him anyway...and I've no issue with that...if you think froome dopes and like him anyway have at it...but don't come along here with this nonsense that a clean froome is able to beat motor doped and oxygen vector doped riders...all whilst trying to explain away the greatest transformation ever seen in cycling.

 

[kwikki]

I'm not sure anybody is, are they?

Not seen any diehard defenders of Froome's purity since I've been reading these threads.

Just a bunch of people broadly in agreement about what is happening, albeit with a few different inflections here and there.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

is

rumors within the SA cycling scene say that he found AICAR in 2011.
sounds plausible, and it would mean there's even some truth in Swart's otherwise ludicrous claim that 'he just lost the fat'.
Froome, doped to the gills pre-Vuelta and doped to the gills post-Vuelta, only now with AICAR.

Froome wasn't exactly fat when he joined Sky in 2010. So even with AICAR, how much fat would he have lost? Losing about 7-8kg of pure fat without losing power would explain the transformation, but did he really have that much fat back in 2010-July 2011

This is the chubster at the end of 2009 season...

Something he found at Sky allowed him to lose a lot of fat whilst simultaneously increasing his power. I guess we'll never know if it was AICAR or pineapple juice that was responsible.

wow, what a sumo wrestler... wearing some kind of camelbak below the jersey (or Rambo muscles?)?[/quote]


To be honest he looks like your average Sunday morning rider in Sky kit with a beer gut and an overpriced pinarello.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?

 

[thehog]

Re:

What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?

You could look at it from another way. Can you think of a plausible set of reasons why it is all being done clean by Sky? is there anything that you see which would give rise that its natural?

That might answer the question...

 

[kwikki]

I don't think that answers his question. He's not suspecting a clean performance, he's suspecting a dirty performance and is asking if anybody knows what could be giving Sky the edge.

If I may be so bold as to summarise what I've read here, I'd say a mixture of theories consisting of advantage gained by either or both mechanical and pharma doping, with the edge given by collusion with the authorities.

Whilst these are possible, there is no clear evidence of what it is yet. But clean, it isn't.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: Re:

What's the current understanding regarding the Froome/Sky dominance? I mean, it's clear something is being done, but what? Is there "theories" with more support or indications than others?

You could look at it from another way. Can you think of a plausible set of reasons why it is all being done clean by Sky?

Of course there would be reasons, like just to "be clean". But that doesn't help me at all, as there is no relationship between why would we do something and how something is done.

is there anything that you see which would give rise that its natural?

No.

That might answer the question...

It doesn't, I'm interested in how is done.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re:

I don't think that answers his question. He's not suspecting a clean performance, he's suspecting a dirty performance and is asking if anybody knows what could be giving Sky the edge.

If I may be so bold as to summarise what I've read here, I'd say a mixture of theories consisting of advantage gained by either or both mechanical and pharma doping, with the edge given by collusion with the authorities.

Whilst these are possible, there is no clear evidence of what it is yet. But clean, it isn't.

Yes, thanks, it's sort of my idea. I guess I was just hoping "forum experts" might have a less vague idea, even if based in flimsy evidence.

 

[Rob27172]

Well as no-one on here (that I am aware of) has access to millions of pounds and the latest laboratory experimental drugs (which is where a lot of doping advances are found)

Then it is no surprise that the "experts" do not for sure or have many concrete theories.

For all we know there could be a EPO mark 2 which is 10 times more potent out there that some lab have cooked up that no-one in the cycling world or drug testing community even know of yet apart from sky.

 

[TMJ]

Both Froome and his rival Quintana, plus Valverde for that matter have young children.

Would people abusing dodgy medicine risk having babies?

Well, since we are talking about the dark world of professional cycling then probably yes, they would in my opinion.

However, does anybody on here think the fact Froome is a new father give strong credence to him not using dodgy drugs - particularly over the previous 18m to 2 years?

It's probable Armstrong's drug abuse caused his cancer and after nearly dying he came back and did it all again!

We also know cyclists have used drugs that have never passed human clinical trials, but despite this does anyone think Froome must have been clean around the time Michelle became pregnant because anything else would have been totally reckless.