Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[AlbineVespuzzio]

frustrating, isn't it?

particularly in this time of the year..

 

[Lyon]

Re:

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.

Instead of defending Froome they have decided to challenge the clinic over minor issues. It is all very transparent and reeks of fanboys having had their eyes opened but finding themselves not yet ready to accept what they see.

 

[Rob27172]

Re:

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.

You are summising that it was a planned pregnancy and they were actively trying as opposed to an accident.
Equally they will have cycles of drugs that they are on and in the off season he could well have to take a break for health reasons and so his body can return to it's natural state in order for the doctors to have a baseline to measure his progress come the next cycle / season

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

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.

Instead of defending Froome they have decided to challenge the clinic over minor issues. It is all very transparent and reeks of fanboys having had their eyes opened but finding themselves not yet ready to accept what they see.

Well, some of what gets posted in here is bordering on the realms of the bizarre, and I'd include your post in that description. Sounds pretty paranoid. It's just a bunch of people yacking about bike riding, isnt it? Same sort of crap that goes on in football forums, Rugby forums, cricket forums, baseball forums...

 

[Cannibal72]

Any evidence that male doping affects genes and thus can harm potential baby? Even if it does, it's very unlikely that those riders thought about it in that way. When injecting is as part of your daily routine, you won't think about it even if you sit down and plan it all out (which must not always be the case); that would be like giving up cornflakes every breakfast, especially if you trust your team doctor.

 

[Microchip]

...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...

Totally agree with this observation.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

I don't think "potential dangers" even enter the consideration of young riders. The assumption is that they generally come from poor, uneducated backgrounds (Landis comes to mind) like football players, for instance, and just do what they are told. Eventually they become proficient in communicating and in the cycling language/culture, but that doesn't mean they suddenly begin to think things through..

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

I don't think "potential dangers" even enter the consideration of young riders. The assumption is that they generally come from poor, uneducated backgrounds (Landis comes to mind) like football players, for instance, and just do what they are told. Eventually they become proficient in communicating and in the cycling language/culture, but that doesn't mean they suddenly begin to think things through..

Exactly. And as long as doping doctors and cyclists run the sport, nothing will change, because cheating will be normalised.

 

[kwikki]

I think they have to dope to do what we've been watching on our screens for the last 12 days.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re:

Any evidence that male doping affects genes and thus can harm potential baby? Even if it does, it's very unlikely that those riders thought about it in that way. When injecting is as part of your daily routine, you won't think about it even if you sit down and plan it all out (which must not always be the case); that would be like giving up cornflakes every breakfast, especially if you trust your team doctor.

EPO would have minimal effect.
Testosterone actually can inhibit male fertility.

Cortico steroid and HGH would be very risky for a female during a pregnancy, but probably have no effect on a male's genetic contribution.

A female athelete who was doping almost certainly would adjust during (and probably before) a pregnancy, but there is little reason to believe a male needs to.

 

[Electress]

Re:

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.

If sense had anything to do with decisions such as these no one would smoke. The level of denial cannot be overestimated. A hell of a lot of people are all to willing to dismiss remote potential ill effects long term for the immediate possibility of money and glory. A lot of riders aren't very bright or particularly educated. By the time they are fathering kids they are long immersed in the system to the extent it is normal. Saw a programme the other day which also stated 30% of people find roids chemically addictive. 100% psychologically so since they make you feel 'healthier'. Lance - who I reckon is possibly rather smarter than many riders out there, is evidence that even a near death experience isn't enough to overcome personal ambition.

 

[Poursuivant]

Anyone see when Froome scratched his arm when there was only 15 left in the group? He is laughing at us. And did anyone notice loads of the riders where sky riders even though everyone knew before the Tour even started they had an incredibly strong team for the climbs. But it is Still Clear evidence he is doped to the gills and that Sky are buzzing off us etc.

PS Porte was smiling all the way up the climb, Brailsford zoomed off into hyperspace and Poels was reading War and Peace as Froome in his sandal shoes dropped exceptionally renowned climbers like Adam Yates by 9 seconds, lol rofl lmao, this is a farce etc.

 

[sniper]

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?

it's a good spot.
looks dodgy enough to me.
he's even trying to make it look like he's putting in some effort, but it's not convincing. Looks too easy. A motor seems pretty plausible here.
it could well be that froome excells amidst a gruop of hardcore dopers thanks to some kind of rear wheel motor technology that only the fewest know about.
I can't see what else it is that makes him go faster than, say, Poels, or Porte. Both Poels and Porte are originally better talents than Froome, and they must have access to the same dope.
Has any body seen any thermal images of any bike this tour?
The sport is pretty screwed thanks to UCI.

 

[Kicker661]

Re:

Any evidence that male doping affects genes and thus can harm potential baby? Even if it does, it's very unlikely that those riders thought about it in that way. When injecting is as part of your daily routine, you won't think about it even if you sit down and plan it all out (which must not always be the case); that would be like giving up cornflakes every breakfast, especially if you trust your team doctor.

.......

 

[Kicker661]

Re: Re:

Saw a programme the other day which also stated 30% of people find roids chemically addictive. 100% psychologically so since they make you feel 'healthier'. Lance - who I reckon is possibly rather smarter than many riders out there, is evidence that even a near death experience isn't enough to overcome personal ambition.

........

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

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.

You are summising that it was a planned pregnancy and they were actively trying as opposed to an accident.
Equally they will have cycles of drugs that they are on and in the off season he could well have to take a break for health reasons and so his body can return to it's natural state in order for the doctors to have a baseline to measure his progress come the next cycle / season

Lol young married couple don't want to have kids because of cycling drugs...pie in he sky stuff from you

 

[Froomster]

To put it in context, Froome's all-round skills are similar to being:

* The best 100m sprinter in the world;
* The best 10,000m runner in the world;
* The best marathon runner in the world,

all at once.

Now, if somebody managed to do that at an Olympics or World Championships once, let alone 4 or 5 times, do you think people would ask questions?

And, if you did all of that looking like you hadn't eaten for 6 months, people would find it all the more remarkable.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

To put it in context, Froome's all-round skills are similar to being:

* The best 100m sprinter in the world;
* The best 10,000m runner in the world;
* The best marathon runner in the world,

all at once.

Would be true if he was beating Cav in sprints, beating Valverde in the ardennes and beating Contador in the mountains. He's only doing one of those right now, so this point is completely invalid

And, if you did all of that looking like you hadn't eaten for 6 months, people would find it all the more remarkable.

It would be more remarkable if he was dropping everyone on the climbs if he was heavy than it would be if he has incredibly low body fat. So this point is completely invalid as well

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

To put it in context, Froome's all-round skills are similar to being:

* The best 100m sprinter in the world;
* The best 10,000m runner in the world;
* The best marathon runner in the world,

all at once.

Would be true if he was beating Cav in sprints, beating Valverde in the ardennes and beating Contador in the mountains. He's only doing one of those right now, so this point is completely invalid

And, if you did all of that looking like you hadn't eaten for 6 months, people would find it all the more remarkable.

It would be more remarkable if he was dropping everyone on the climbs if he was heavy than it would be if he has incredibly low body fat. So this point is completely invalid as well

Froome bridged to Sagan. Kristoff couldn't. Watch the vid. So he out powered Kristoff. No mean feat for such a skinny climber.

As for Ardennes. Froome does what Armstrong did, build a season around 1 race. In all likely hood he wood win LBL, Amstel etc if he so chose.

 

[Saint Unix]

Froome bridged the gap without difficulties. Thomas spent much more time getting up, even if he was right on Froome's wheel at the start of the attack.

Froome's watt output must make Thomas' look amateurish.

 

[SeriousSam]

He could certainly win FW.

 

[argel]

Re:

Anyone see when Froome scratched his arm when there was only 15 left in the group? He is laughing at us. And did anyone notice loads of the riders where sky riders even though everyone knew before the Tour even started they had an incredibly strong team for the climbs. But it is Still Clear evidence he is doped to the gills and that Sky are buzzing off us etc.

PS Porte was smiling all the way up the climb, Brailsford zoomed off into hyperspace and Poels was reading War and Peace as Froome in his sandal shoes dropped exceptionally renowned climbers like Adam Yates by 9 seconds, lol rofl lmao, this is a farce etc.

Of all the tinfoil hat stuff on here, this is by far the worst. I read posts like this on every page and it undermines everything people say that is grounded in legit concern by picking up tiny details and blowing them up into 'OMG THEY ARE SO BLATANTLY LAUGHING AT US, I SAW FROOME POST IN THE CLINIC WHILE RIDING UP VENTOUX IN 2013' style rubbish.

I'll defend Froome in the sense that I have an open mind that he might be legit. I think it's hard to have an open mind on here because you're immediately dismissed as a fanboi (I hate Sky, I hate what they're doing to the front of the race, I just don't necessarily think it's as a result of systemic illegality) regardless. A few days ago in this thread, someone (the same poster) said both of these things:

'At least the skeptics are reasonable and concede when valid points are made'

and

'no reasonable person can say that Froome is not doping'

That type of contradictory 'we're the reasonable ones but only if you agree with us' is why the clinic is treated like what it is, a paranoid group of (rightly) embittered former cycling fans who now accuse every rider who wins of illegality.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Anyone see when Froome scratched his arm when there was only 15 left in the group? He is laughing at us. And did anyone notice loads of the riders where sky riders even though everyone knew before the Tour even started they had an incredibly strong team for the climbs. But it is Still Clear evidence he is doped to the gills and that Sky are buzzing off us etc.

PS Porte was smiling all the way up the climb, Brailsford zoomed off into hyperspace and Poels was reading War and Peace as Froome in his sandal shoes dropped exceptionally renowned climbers like Adam Yates by 9 seconds, lol rofl lmao, this is a farce etc.

Of all the tinfoil hat stuff on here, this is by far the worst. I read posts like this on every page and it undermines everything people say that is grounded in legit concern by picking up tiny details and blowing them up into 'OMG THEY ARE SO BLATANTLY LAUGHING AT US, I SAW FROOME POST IN THE CLINIC WHILE RIDING UP VENTOUX IN 2013' style rubbish.

I'll defend Froome in the sense that I have an open mind that he might be legit. I think it's hard to have an open mind on here because you're immediately dismissed as a fanboi (I hate Sky, I hate what they're doing to the front of the race, I just don't necessarily think it's as a result of systemic illegality) regardless. A few days ago in this thread, someone (the same poster) said both of these things:

'At least the skeptics are reasonable and concede when valid points are made'

and

'no reasonable person can say that Froome is not doping'

That type of contradictory 'we're the reasonable ones but only if you agree with us' is why the clinic is treated like what it is, a paranoid group of (rightly) embittered former cycling fans who now accuse every rider who wins of illegality.

For Froome to 'might be legit', needs for lots of things to be in his favour against what is pointing towards doping and cheating.

Can you point to those things, that might mean Froome is legit?

I mean he is beating a lot of known dopers and doping teams whose doctors are well known to have worked with dirty teams in the past.

IMO Froome is more obvious a cheat than Armstrong. Armstrong was a world champ at 21.

 

[Cannibal72]

Froome could never win LBL or AGR even if he aimed for them, not for clinical reasons, but because he simply doesn't have the experience of one-day racing or the tactical knowledge which is all-important for classics but essentially irrelevant for the wattage tests which are GCs. FW, maybe, because as Movistar show you can use a train for that race and wait for the sprint, but the Mur is quite different from the last 500m of an MTF, which is Froome's speciality. I doubt very much he would outsprint Bala, Alaphilipe, or even Poels.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Froome could never win LBL or AGR even if he aimed for them, not for clinical reasons, but because he simply doesn't have the experience of one-day racing or the tactical knowledge which is all-important for classics but essentially irrelevant for the wattage tests which are GCs. FW, maybe, because as Movistar show you can use a train for that race and wait for the sprint, but the Mur is quite different from the last 500m of an MTF, which is Froome's speciality. I doubt very much he would outsprint Bala, Alaphilipe, or even Poels.

I disagree. Froome was poor dom who became a GT giant. No reason not to believe he couldn't be a classics specialist if he wanted. But why would he want to? TdF is the race, sadly, to win.