Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[lawhoo]

So what is his doping plan? With Armstrong, there were rumors before the big reveal about EPO, blood bags, the O'Reilly cortosone story, Actovigen, etc. Plus, everyone was doing it to different extents.

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

How do you know Boonen and Nibali were using doping in there teens, while they were already getting great results? Maybe, just maybe, they actually do have a lot of talent. If Froome was a once-in-a-generation talent we'd have seen it before 2011, doping or not. I don't need to think anyone is clean, but I do know the world isn't black and white and it's statistically very unlikely that the entire peloton is doping. Who's clean and who's dirty? I don't know. I do know that Froome is one of the most dubious athletes in the history of sport.

For Froome's results of today to be consistent with his past, he should have shown Sagan-like results in his early teens. Instead we have a guy that got thrown out of the Giro for hanging onto a motorbike because the climb was too hard for him.

You don't see me hating on Adam Yates because he at least has shown promise early on. Does that mean I think he's clean? No, I don't know that, only he and his entourage does. But at least he always showed a lot of talent.

I find it hard to believe there are many 14 year olds using forbidden substances already. Maybe some parents are crazy enough to pressure their children into doping, but I doubt it's the majority. I was a decent athlete in my country at that age and I never came into contact with doping.

If Nibali is competing with known dopers like Contador & Valverde, and pretty much known dopers like Froome, who are at a ~10% advantage thanks to doping, despite being clean, well he's a bigger talent than Merckx. I personally find that hard to believe and ignore the 0.00001% chance that it may be true (Froome, Contador etc are already in the top 0.01% of the human gene pool without doping, to be 10% better than that...). Similar case with Boonen, just less classics riders been busted to exemplify my point.

And usually with teenage doping, it's not the parents suggesting that the athlete should dope, it's the athlete being enticed themself. You're right, there aren't going to be many 14 year olds on PEDs, but at that point all elite competition is fairly clean. But then those guys, who you were beating as a 14 year old, suddenly start beating you at 16-17. Then Dr Moneygrabber comes along, shows you a couple of 'nifty tricks', and boom, you're back to being at the top of the sport. The athlete sees Dr Moneygrabber's offer, sees all these suspicious pros getting away with it, sees all his/her competitors getting away with it, and joins them.

 

[42x16ss]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

Because of who backs Sky. If you thought L.A. could destroy people, imagine what Sky could do.

This is a stupid argument.

1) Sky, News Corp and Murdoch have many enemies in the media. The likes of Dacre, the BBC, The Guardian and others would LOVE to take News Corp down by association. The motive is very much there for them to do so.

2) The second they hounded a reporter or intimated that they might be on to something, the game would be up. It'd be leaked via 'anonymous sources' around the peloton and cycling fraternity and then to the mainstream media that Sky were trying to deter people getting too close and it'd be obvious that they had a major scandal just waiting to be blown open.

3) Do you honestly believe that BSKYB/News Corp as companies (as much as I hate them and Murdoch) would sanction an attempt to systemically dope their OWN BRAND team to the top of a minor sport? The image damage it would do if they were caught would be way beyond any rewards they could make and last for decades. Sports are a massive part of the Sky TV brand, yet here would be them losing all credibility in that field by cheating a sport. It would open them up to yet more parliamentary scrutiny and likely be used against them in future business deals.

I just think some of you are thick and don't actually consider how difficult or problematic this would be for Sky if they were caught. In which case, if the plan was always to dope their way to the top, and it's known among the upper hierarchy of BSKYB, why would they have put their name on the team in the first place? Everybody knows that sooner or later, all doping scandals come out. It doesn't matter who backs you, who covers for you, eventually either you stop paying people enough to keep it secret, or someone grows a conscience and goes to the press with an anonymous or on-the-record tip off.

Those comparing Froome to Lance are just ignoring the huge amount of legitimate evidence and scandal that had built up around Armstrong throughout his career, even at the start. It's just selectively taking the on-the-road comparison, yet dismissing the off-the-bike stuff that had people hounding his every move by 03.

Come on, Murdoch decides governments. As if rival media outlets care enough about a second string sport to take him to task just on that.

 

[kwikki]

So what is his doping plan? With Armstrong, there were rumors before the big reveal about EPO, blood bags, the O'Reilly cortosone story, Actovigen, etc.

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I thought it was a nice TT by the dawg, his TT style is getting better. Dumoulin should watch out in Rio.

 

[42x16ss]

So, Froome's able to haul ar$e up a mountain on a TT rig AND a disk.... The only other game(?) enough to try this appeared to be Valverde.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

How do you know Boonen and Nibali were using doping in there teens, while they were already getting great results? Maybe, just maybe, they actually do have a lot of talent. If Froome was a once-in-a-generation talent we'd have seen it before 2011, doping or not. I don't need to think anyone is clean, but I do know the world isn't black and white and it's statistically very unlikely that the entire peloton is doping. Who's clean and who's dirty? I don't know. I do know that Froome is one of the most dubious athletes in the history of sport.

For Froome's results of today to be consistent with his past, he should have shown Sagan-like results in his early teens. Instead we have a guy that got thrown out of the Giro for hanging onto a motorbike because the climb was too hard for him.

You don't see me hating on Adam Yates because he at least has shown promise early on. Does that mean I think he's clean? No, I don't know that, only he and his entourage does. But at least he always showed a lot of talent.

I find it hard to believe there are many 14 year olds using forbidden substances already. Maybe some parents are crazy enough to pressure their children into doping, but I doubt it's the majority. I was a decent athlete in my country at that age and I never came into contact with doping.

If Nibali is competing with known dopers like Contador & Valverde, and pretty much known dopers like Froome, who are at a ~10% advantage thanks to doping, despite being clean, well he's a bigger talent than Merckx. I personally find that hard to believe and ignore the 0.00001% chance that it may be true (Froome, Contador etc are already in the top 0.01% of the human gene pool without doping, to be 10% better than that...). Similar case with Boonen, just less classics riders been busted to exemplify my point.

And usually with teenage doping, it's not the parents suggesting that the athlete should dope, it's the athlete being enticed themself. You're right, there aren't going to be many 14 year olds on PEDs, but at that point all elite competition is fairly clean. But then those guys, who you were beating as a 14 year old, suddenly start beating you at 16-17. Then Dr Moneygrabber comes along, shows you a couple of 'nifty tricks', and boom, you're back to being at the top of the sport. The athlete sees Dr Moneygrabber's offer, sees all these suspicious pros getting away with it, sees all his/her competitors getting away with it, and joins them.

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.[/quote]

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

If you were a Lance sceptic (which I doubt) there is no way you would be cutting Froome slack. Not in this sport and its track record. The only absurdity to this forum is that with Western Civilization in such an obvious mess, more don't join the Benedictines.

What is this absurdidty? I was very much a Lance sceptic, in fact I was one of the few people who followed cycling where I worked at the time and had many arguments with people, telling them about Ferrari, then O'Reilly, Walsh etc. They were having none of it.

But therein lies the rub. It was clear that at some level, Lance was not only suspected, but had credible eyewitness sources who were willing to go on the record and accuse him of doping. There was his bullying of Bassons, which was about as clear an indication as you could get which side he was on... the man was thoroughly dislikeable and the livestrong thing very much annoyed me because of how ordinary people were prepared to overlook those things.

I've said it from the start, but if/when Froome is in the same boat, I'll feel the same about him - maybe even worse, because I believe him now. I won't make any excuses for him at that point, I will be exactly as I was with Lance. I won't jump the gun on any rider - not just Froome - today though, not without more than the 'he's really good' brigade.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

 

[Cannibal72]

Re: Re:

If you were a Lance sceptic (which I doubt) there is no way you would be cutting Froome slack. Not in this sport and its track record. The only absurdity to this forum is that with Western Civilization in such an obvious mess, more don't join the Benedictines.

What is this absurdidty? I was very much a Lance sceptic, in fact I was one of the few people who followed cycling where I worked at the time and had many arguments with people, telling them about Ferrari, then O'Reilly, Walsh etc. They were having none of it.

But therein lies the rub. It was clear that at some level, Lance was not only suspected, but had credible eyewitness sources who were willing to go on the record and accuse him of doping. There was his bullying of Bassons, which was about as clear an indication as you could get which side he was on... the man was thoroughly dislikeable and the livestrong thing very much annoyed me because of how ordinary people were prepared to overlook those things.

I've said it from the start, but if/when Froome is in the same boat, I'll feel the same about him - maybe even worse, because I believe him now. I won't make any excuses for him at that point, I will be exactly as I was with Lance. I won't jump the gun on any rider - not just Froome - today though, not without more than the 'he's really good' brigade.

Froome seems like a genuinely decent, pleasant human being (no, guys, the email thing isn't evil.) Armstrong seems like a horrible excuse for a human being. That's why he bullied Bassons, and that's why so many people blew the whistle. He just made that many enemies.

Indurain was also a really nice guy. No whistleblowers came forward from Banesto. He never bullied anyone. He still has his Tour wins. And yet he himself has tacitly admitted doping.

Whistleblowers aren't inevitable. We think they are because there were so many with Armstrkng at this point, but if you're happy on your team, or if you respect Froome from another team, why blab about it? Armstrong was the orchestrator of his own downfall. It didn't need to happen and it wasn't inevitable.

 

[argel]

Does anyone know, are any serious investigative journalists digging in to these Froome and Sky performances?
If not, why not?

If they are doping someone really needs to do the work to expose it.

Because of who backs Sky. If you thought L.A. could destroy people, imagine what Sky could do.

This is a stupid argument.

1) Sky, News Corp and Murdoch have many enemies in the media. The likes of Dacre, the BBC, The Guardian and others would LOVE to take News Corp down by association. The motive is very much there for them to do so.

2) The second they hounded a reporter or intimated that they might be on to something, the game would be up. It'd be leaked via 'anonymous sources' around the peloton and cycling fraternity and then to the mainstream media that Sky were trying to deter people getting too close and it'd be obvious that they had a major scandal just waiting to be blown open.

3) Do you honestly believe that BSKYB/News Corp as companies (as much as I hate them and Murdoch) would sanction an attempt to systemically dope their OWN BRAND team to the top of a minor sport? The image damage it would do if they were caught would be way beyond any rewards they could make and last for decades. Sports are a massive part of the Sky TV brand, yet here would be them losing all credibility in that field by cheating a sport. It would open them up to yet more parliamentary scrutiny and likely be used against them in future business deals.

I just think some of you are thick and don't actually consider how difficult or problematic this would be for Sky if they were caught. In which case, if the plan was always to dope their way to the top, and it's known among the upper hierarchy of BSKYB, why would they have put their name on the team in the first place? Everybody knows that sooner or later, all doping scandals come out. It doesn't matter who backs you, who covers for you, eventually either you stop paying people enough to keep it secret, or someone grows a conscience and goes to the press with an anonymous or on-the-record tip off.

Those comparing Froome to Lance are just ignoring the huge amount of legitimate evidence and scandal that had built up around Armstrong throughout his career, even at the start. It's just selectively taking the on-the-road comparison, yet dismissing the off-the-bike stuff that had people hounding his every move by 03.

Come on, Murdoch decides governments. As if rival media outlets care enough about a second string sport to take him to task just on that.

You mean like the phone hacking scandals? You mean like when he was dragged in front of British politicians and forced to answer questions with his son and even had a pie thrown in his face by a protestor? You have no idea how reviled the man is among not only the public, but the press and politicians.

There is a huge amount of incentive to damage him personally, regardless of how niche cycling is. It's the principle that he or senior Sky execs would be willing to sanction a systemic approach to cheat in sport. It would make any takeover (and sky are aggressive with that) of a rival impossible, see him hauled in front of the parliamentary committees again (alongside Brailsford, now stripped of his knighthood and facing criminal charges) and be a massive blow to sky and news corp's image.

Even today, people use Milly Dowler as a byword for the underhand tactics of News Corp. Systemic doping would be a blow to the image of the other wing of their media empire in Europe.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Yet, Froome - 2011.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.[/quote]


In my view he's discovered 'something'.

But Aicar is available to everybody. Can that account for dominance of a previously mediocre rider?

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.

In my view he's discovered 'something'.

But Aicar is available to everybody. Can that account for dominance of a previously mediocre rider?[/quote]

agree, so what is that? what is that fuel that´s not available to his rivals?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.

In my view he's discovered 'something'.

But Aicar is available to everybody. Can that account for dominance of a previously mediocre rider?

??? You’re assuming that all drugs provide the same level of improvement for every rider that takes them. It doesn’t work like that. EPO for example would benefit those with a lower Hematocrit more so than those with a value closer to 50%. Additionally if an athlete had a better doping support structure to implement the program they have more chance to gain performance than a lower ranked rider who does have a personal doctor, having passport values maintained and connections into the UCI (leinders) etc.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Thomas Dekker disagrees.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Yet, Froome - 2011.

Ok, so pre-2011, poor Froomey's drugs ain't working, if he was using any. But everyone else around him is juiced up. So he's already at a 10% disadvantage off the bat.

But he was more than 10% worse than the elite cyclists. Why?
This can partly be explained by poor energy conservation. In the past, whenever he felt good, he attacked and wasted energy, instead of just sitting back and doing something more tactically smart. Until the Vuelta 2011, where he was forced to stay on a leash and ride conservatively for Wiggins, he was wasting his energy in stupid places. All of a sudden, he was saving his energy for the finale, and at this point everyone realised he had potential. That on its own doesn't explain the massive transformation, but does partly explain it. Maybe there is also an element of truth to the bilzharia ****

To suggest Froome had little talent pre-Vuelta 2011 is ridiculous. Geraint Thomas, who definitely is pretty talented, was probably using a similar program to Froome before and after the 2015 TdF, and you don't see him winning any grand tours any time soon. Furthermore, when Team Sky was established, the guy who they believed was going to be the 'British rider winning the Tour within 5 years' was Froome himself before Wiggins got his 4th place at the 09 TdF. Sure, Froome had no talent before 2011

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Thomas Dekker disagrees.

Chiappa too - although it works only for a short time, while you have a "first on the market" advantage

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Yet, Froome - 2011.

Ok, so pre-2011, poor Froomey's drugs ain't working, if he was using any. But everyone else around him is juiced up. So he's already at a 10% disadvantage off the bat.

But he was more than 10% worse than the elite cyclists. Why?
This can partly be explained by poor energy conservation. In the past, whenever he felt good, he attacked and wasted energy, instead of just sitting back and doing something more tactically smart. Until the Vuelta 2011, where he was forced to stay on a leash and ride conservatively for Wiggins, he was wasting his energy in stupid places. All of a sudden, he was saving his energy for the finale, and at this point everyone realised he had potential. That on its own doesn't explain the massive transformation, but does partly explain it. Maybe there is also an element of truth to the bilzharia ****

To suggest Froome had little talent pre-Vuelta 2011 is ridiculous. Geraint Thomas, who definitely is pretty talented, was probably using a similar program to Froome before and after the 2015 TdF, and you don't see him winning any grand tours any time soon. Furthermore, when Team Sky was established, the guy who they believed was going to be the 'British rider winning the Tour within 5 years' was Froome himself before Wiggins got his 4th place at the 09 TdF. Sure, Froome had no talent before 2011

Not everyone reacts the same way to drugs/medication/doping. Maybe Froome is a super-responder, There's a whole list of side-effects for medication, but that doesn't mean you'll experience all those side-effects, it differs from person to person.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.

In my view he's discovered 'something'.

But Aicar is available to everybody. Can that account for dominance of a previously mediocre rider?

??? You’re assuming that all drugs provide the same level of improvement for every rider that takes them. It doesn’t work like that. EPO for example would benefit those with a lower Hematocrit more so than those with a value closer to 50%. Additionally if an athlete had a better doping support structure to implement the program they have more chance to gain performance than a lower ranked rider who does have a personal doctor, having passport values maintained and connections into the UCI (leinders) etc.[/quote]

I think we all know that, but that argument only holds for riders who were already half decent.

EPO might turn a donkey into a racehorse, but what does it turn a racehorse into?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

What are the plausible plans here to account for the accelerations and the style? I don't think "something secret" is a good answer as almost all doping developments have been preceded by clinical attention to new products in medical/physio journals, etc. So there must be some idea of what it is, if there is an "it".

Nobody knows.

If we did it would be game over for this thread and for Froome.

It's very likely Froome discovered aicar in 2011.

In my view he's discovered 'something'.

But Aicar is available to everybody. Can that account for dominance of a previously mediocre rider?

??? You’re assuming that all drugs provide the same level of improvement for every rider that takes them. It doesn’t work like that. EPO for example would benefit those with a lower Hematocrit more so than those with a value closer to 50%. Additionally if an athlete had a better doping support structure to implement the program they have more chance to gain performance than a lower ranked rider who does have a personal doctor, having passport values maintained and connections into the UCI (leinders) etc.

I think we all know that, but that argument only holds for riders who were already half decent.

EPO might turn a donkey into a racehorse, but what does it turn a racehorse into?

That's not really making any sense whatsoever. EPO doesn't do much for someone who naturally has a high Hematocrit. It does aid with recovery once you're in week 2 of a GT though.

I sense you're not really adept at this subject though.

 

[Cannibal72]

A racehorse who is able to keep up with all the other doped racehorses.

 

[Bag of Guts]

Re: Re:

This can partly be explained by poor energy conservation. In the past, whenever he felt good, he attacked and wasted energy, instead of just sitting back and doing something more tactically smart. Until the Vuelta 2011, where he was forced to stay on a leash and ride conservatively for Wiggins, he was wasting his energy in stupid places. All of a sudden, he was saving his energy for the finale, and at this point everyone realised he had potential.

Sorry to wade in from nowhere, but you surely can't be suggesting that riding on the front for Wiggins constitutes energy conservation. Can you?

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re:

That pretty much aligns with my thinking.

I'm not that bothered by Sky's doping, because I think everyone is. A line is crossed, does it matter if different people are in slightly different positions on the wrong side of that line? They are all cheats.

My position is actually a lazy position to hold. It makes viewing sort of ok. I'd be far more troubled if I thought some riders were clean.

I'm guessing that somebody like Benotti might feel the same.

It wasn't a bit upseting to you in the 2000's knowing that Lance was doing much more than the others and that it was that that gave him not just the ability to get some kind of results GC-wise, but also ability to dominate?

Is there, in your mind, different degrees of doping? motorized doping (or blood doping) won't ruin your experience, as long as you know the other riders are micro-dosing?