Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[PremierAndrew]

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?

He was held on a leash until his turn on the front. Until the point that he started leading the peloton, he was saving a lot more energy than he previously was. But he used to be very inconsistent, with some great days where he could do something. How he became consistent enough to lead a team in a GT all of a sudden, that's a mystery

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

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.

Haemocrit isn't the be all and end all of athletic ability. If it was, a couple of shots and you too could be a Tour rider.

I realise in your desperation to troll you are willing to compromise knowledge you may actually possess, and you've overlooked that the days of high haemocrit are over, and that there is a test for EPO.

You yourself are keen to portray Froome as an absolute no-hoper, and EPO use cannot account for such a sudden and marked transformation, if as you say Froome was nothing. It may have done 15 years ago, but most likely not now.

So, rather than just perpetually trying to deliberately inflame what can be contentious debate, why don't you actually control your less mature impulses, conduct yourself like a grown up, and contribute in the same spirit that all the other grown ups on here manage.

Seems fair enough, no?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

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.

Do you have a definition for "doesn't do much"? "Does less" would be a reasonable, defensible statement.

This is fuzzy (at best), shoddy (at least) analysis, compounded by the irony of suggesting the other poster isn't adept.

I understand my pointing it out is pointless–-as such my post is meant for the benefit of the casual reader, not the author.

 

[kwikki]

Re: 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?

With regards to Armstrong, I'd already been a bit turned off the sport by Indurain. Armstrong just seemed like more of the same but with added American bullsh*t. I knew he was almost certainly doped, just as I knew the others were too, as I had some contacts in the sport at that point. What I really didn't know was the level of collusion he had with the authorities. I can't say I was surprised, but I certainly didn't know.

If I had known that, I would have been upset, but I accept that may not be consistent.

With regards to your question about levels of cheating, no, I'm not hugely bothered from a spectating point of view. I regard them all as cheats...kind of magnificent cheats, but cheats nevertheless. Trying to unpick who is or might be the least worst cheat seems a bit farcical, especially as athletic performance becomes a suspicious marker for cheating.

Once you get to that point there really is nowhere to go. You might as well just sit back and enjoy the scenery.

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Re: 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?

With regards to Armstrong, I'd already been a bit turned off the sport by Indurain. Armstrong just seemed like more of the same but with added American *******t. I knew he was almost certainly doped, just as I knew the others were too, as I had some contacts in the sport at that point. What I really didn't know was the level of collusion he had with the authorities. I can't say I was surprised, but I certainly didn't know.

If I had known that, I would have been upset, but I accept that may not be consistent.

With regards to your question about levels of cheating, no, I'm not hugely bothered from a spectating point of view. I regard them all as cheats...kind of magnificent cheats, but cheats nevertheless. Trying to unpick who is or might be the least worst cheat seems a bit farcical, especially as athletic performance becomes a suspicious marker for cheating.

Once you get to that point there really is nowhere to go. You might as well just sit back and enjoy the scenery.

I think it was particularly clear at the time Lance was doing more than the others, not just by the dominance, but also because of his characterisics, riding/cyclist type he had no business winning TT, climbing with the specialists, having such a dominant team. He was good at winning classics/classic-like stages, not more, while it was clear others were much more talented (even if only by the riding style)

I think there are different degrees of "cheating":
. A guy can waste 30 secs in a football match and I see no harm.
. Diving a bit worse, but totally acceptable.
. scoring with the hand is worse (still not a totally reprochable thing).
. Doping with HGH or whatever can be regarded as bad, and worthy of punishment/persecution.
. Fixing matches very very bad, team disqualification is the minimum.
All of these are considered "cheating".

The point is that there are some things we cannot change and we can accept them as normal (ultimately every team does it), while others, like a league with fixed matches can ruin the experience. Maybe a binary approach to cheating is not the correct way to look at it?

 

[The Hitch]

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.

This is the classic sky fan lie. So easy to claim on the internet you doubted lance. Did you really? Highly unlikely.

At the time the popular attitude was that witnesses were not adequate evidence to believe a rider is doping. They could all have just been bitter and lying. You had to give the rider the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after USADA that people began to accept that witnesses do count as proof.

The people saying now that witnesses should count as proof, but ascent speeds, doping doctors on the team and insane transformations shouldn't, are highly unlikely in the extreme to have been doubting lance 10 years ago, when on the face of it there was nothing but a few upset losers making up stories to sell a book

 

[peloton]

Stop the personal stuff, now.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

Do you have a definition for "doesn't do much"? "Does less" would be a reasonable, defensible statement.

This is fuzzy (at best), shoddy (at least) analysis, compounded by the irony of suggesting the other poster isn't adept.

I understand my pointing it out is pointless–-as such my post is meant for the benefit of the casual reader, not the author.

Agreed with all your points.

I would say if you could raise it to 60% like in the Riis days then yes it would do a lot but the 50% rule means 53% only with a saline down to 48%.

So, yes, "do less" is better.

It's the one area which I trust Vaughters on, he makes the same point on EPO;

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/pro-cycling/exclusive-interview-vaughters-reveals-more-about-his-doping-and-new-york-times-op

 

[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?

He was held on a leash until his turn on the front. Until the point that he started leading the peloton, he was saving a lot more energy than he previously was. But he used to be very inconsistent, with some great days where he could do something. How he became consistent enough to lead a team in a GT all of a sudden, that's a mystery

In my opinion, you're giving this idea a lot more credence than it deserves. As far as I can remember, this was originally proposed by Sky themselves (Brailsford, maybe?), I presume in an attempt to partially justify Froome's ludicrous journey from Hendy-pushing Giro zig-zagger to the sport's pantheon of all-time greats. However, painting pre-transformation Froome as some kind of devil may care Vino-esque swashbuckler whose spirited, yet tactically naive attacking style cost him the crucial energy he needed to rise to the top of the sport is, I think, disingenuous at best. Apart from his giro zig-zag and being part of the failed 2008 Alpe d'Huez breakaway he barely registered. That's not to say he was terrible, he wasn't. But the flashes of brilliance he's meant to have shown are, as far as I can tell, a few solid, unremarkable mid-pack placings, a time trial in sand shoes and the jock strap race (forgive my glibness - what I really mean is: okay results, could be the next Charlie Wegelius if he works at it). Doomed attacks that waste of energy, undertaken in the spirit of adventure are entertaining and get remembered. Yet my memories (for what they're worth) of pre-2011 Froome are those of someone with the potential to become a solid journeyman domestique, no more, no less. Unless I've misunderstood how he was supposed to be wasting energy? Riding up and down the bunch for lulzers or something?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

As far as I can remember, this was originally proposed by Sky themselves (Brailsford, maybe?), I presume in an attempt to partially justify Froome's ludicrous journey from Hendy-pushing Giro zig-zagger to the sport's pantheon of all-time greats.

Bingo. Just a simple parroting of the talking points which Sky put out there. Frightening how effective such transparently absurd manipulation techniques really can be.

 

[SeriousSam]

You're all forgetting the day he beat Tour de France winner Contador in a MTF

 

[BYOP88]

You're all forgetting the day he beat Tour de France winner Contador in a MTF

Who and I can't stress this enough, did not have any mechanical issues whatsoever on that MTF.

 

[Saint Unix]

The one MTF that Bertie sandbagged harder than he ever has in his life, and Chris Froome was there grinding his gears to squeeze ahead, and doing so was such a monumentous occasion that he still remembers it and even put it in his book.

 

[Cannibal72]

And it was a really major race. Called the Vuelta, right? Sounds legit.

 

[Saint Unix]

Vuelta a Whatever of 2011. Froome finished a second behind a then 22 year old future climbing superstar called Tom-Jelte Slagter.

Here's Contador fixing one of his three punctures on that stage:
http://www.grassyknolltv.com/2011/vuelta-castilla-y-leon/photos/stage-03/275-RTR2L9R2.jpg

And here's Contador waving to the crowd while he idles along, chatting to his good mate Jesus Hernandez:
http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2011/04/16/2/bettiniphoto_0078027_1_full_600.jpg

Say cheese:
http://www.albertocontadornotebook.info/i/acoffCyL2011st3.jpg

Here's some fat guy who's stolen Froome's kit:
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/bestfit/images/master/1/2015/04/16/-1/47398/944/708/1429189583839.jpg

Froome at the finish blowing out his arse harder than we've seen in the last five years:
http://www.teamsky.com/teamsky/bestfit/images/master/1/2015/04/16/-1/47403/944/708/1429189591454.jpg

 

[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.

This is the classic sky fan lie. So easy to claim on the internet you doubted lance. Did you really? Highly unlikely.

At the time the popular attitude was that witnesses were not adequate evidence to believe a rider is doping. They could all have just been bitter and lying. You had to give the rider the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after USADA that people began to accept that witnesses do count as proof.

The people saying now that witnesses should count as proof, but ascent speeds, doping doctors on the team and insane transformations shouldn't, are highly unlikely in the extreme to have been doubting lance 10 years ago, when on the face of it there was nothing but a few upset losers making up stories to sell a book

Excuse me, but in a polite way, let me ask you just who the *** do you think you are? I don't care what you think of Froome or Sky or Lance, but calling me a liar just to support your point? Pathetic.

I have watched this sport through Indurain to Froome, and yes, when Ullrich, Virenque and Zulle went down, I knew the chances Lance weren't doping were so slim it was borderline impossible. Coupled with the fact that people were willing to speak out against him in the cycling community and even within his team, I was fully detached from his victories. I felt that the public deification of him was even more distasteful, and in fact turned me away from the sport during the end of his era.

Regardless, I do believe there are clear differences in the culture of cycling, the resources of Sky as a team in comparison to it's rivals, and the stakeholders at the top of team sky in comparison to USP who were already tainted anyway like Bruyneel.

Think about the people who would have had to make the decision to organise a fully fledged systemic doping operation - while simultaneously espousing the contrary message of anti-doping - at a point where within 6 months, Lance was under federal investigation. Even if for some bizarre reason, James Murdoch and Dave Brailsford thought that was worth taking the risk with their own and the SKY reputation, how could they get 6 months in and watch a man who was protected by the UCI be completely torn to shreds publicly and continue?

Nobody ever answers those questions, because inconveniently for those who are convicting Sky/Froome by their own standards of evidence, there is plenty of logical reasoning that suggests it would take a lot of incredibly needless and bizarre decisions to be made by people with a lot to lose in order to start, finance and then cover up such behaviour.

 

[thehog]

You're all forgetting the day he beat Tour de France winner Contador in a MTF

Who and I can't stress this enough, did not have any mechanical issues whatsoever on that MTF.

Never get tired of this one... It's a Walsh/Froome classic :lol:

 

[Electress]

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

What incentive would there be to do such a thing?

To be honest the best and most comprehensive database on Froome BS and BS backstory is here in the Clinic. The Walsh books and Badzhila thread being the best.

I think it's going to take a disgruntled former teammate, ala Floyd Landis. It will happen. It might take 10-20 years, but it will happen.

There won't be any of those as no one ever tests positive anymore. JTL being the last but he really was a side act to the main show.

The current UCI president set up Team Sky and sat on the board, you're just not going to see him seek out a vendetta like Verbruggen did on Landis.

Wiggins has no financial gain of beeing a whistleblower. The one i can see doing it in the future is Porte, it reminds me of Hamilton to CSC and finaly getting sacraficed down the road when he started getting to close to Armstrong.

Except Froome and Porte appear to be too close for Porte to snake

As someone posted earlier, Cound might be the best bet, or some mechanic who happens to come across something while working his/her shift and selling it to the papers

I some times wonder about EBH. His trajectory was an odd one...I often think an off the record chat with him my turn over a few stones.

 

[Dan2016]

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.

Well put. Indeed it's very unlikely BSkyB executives would have direct knowledge of, even less endorse, a team Sky doping programme.

Corporate ethics?:
- Have BSkyB carried out their 'due diligence' into the performances of Team Sky?
- Would plausible deniability really be...plausible, given recent history?
- Is Murdoch a shape-shifting reptilian?

If doping is going on here, surely it can't be that difficult for an experienced investigator to get to the bottom of this, find the doctors involved, trace the money etc.

The pain and suffering involved in bike racing is pretty intense. Higher up the ranks the pain shouldn't be any less, you're just going faster. When we see the best in the world making the biggest races and highest speeds look physically like a club training ride, it's a little hard to stomach.

 

[42x16ss]

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.

This is the classic sky fan lie. So easy to claim on the internet you doubted lance. Did you really? Highly unlikely.

At the time the popular attitude was that witnesses were not adequate evidence to believe a rider is doping. They could all have just been bitter and lying. You had to give the rider the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after USADA that people began to accept that witnesses do count as proof.

The people saying now that witnesses should count as proof, but ascent speeds, doping doctors on the team and insane transformations shouldn't, are highly unlikely in the extreme to have been doubting lance 10 years ago, when on the face of it there was nothing but a few upset losers making up stories to sell a book

Excuse me, but in a polite way, let me ask you just who the **** do you think you are? I don't care what you think of Froome or Sky or Lance, but calling me a liar just to support your point? Pathetic.

I have watched this sport through Indurain to Froome, and yes, when Ullrich, Virenque and Zulle went down, I knew the chances Lance weren't doping were so slim it was borderline impossible. Coupled with the fact that people were willing to speak out against him in the cycling community and even within his team, I was fully detached from his victories. I felt that the public deification of him was even more distasteful, and in fact turned me away from the sport during the end of his era.

Regardless, I do believe there are clear differences in the culture of cycling, the resources of Sky as a team in comparison to it's rivals, and the stakeholders at the top of team sky in comparison to USP who were already tainted anyway like Bruyneel.

Think about the people who would have had to make the decision to organise a fully fledged systemic doping operation - while simultaneously espousing the contrary message of anti-doping - at a point where within 6 months, Lance was under federal investigation. Even if for some bizarre reason, James Murdoch and Dave Brailsford thought that was worth taking the risk with their own and the SKY reputation, how could they get 6 months in and watch a man who was protected by the UCI be completely torn to shreds publicly and continue?

Nobody ever answers those questions, because inconveniently for those who are convicting Sky/Froome by their own standards of evidence, there is plenty of logical reasoning that suggests it would take a lot of incredibly needless and bizarre decisions to be made by people with a lot to lose in order to start, finance and then cover up such behaviour.

So, just double checking - your argument is:

"It's really, really, REALLY different THIS time guys, just trust me!"

Yeah?

 

[wrinklyvet]

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.

This is the classic sky fan lie. So easy to claim on the internet you doubted lance. Did you really? Highly unlikely.

At the time the popular attitude was that witnesses were not adequate evidence to believe a rider is doping. They could all have just been bitter and lying. You had to give the rider the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after USADA that people began to accept that witnesses do count as proof.

The people saying now that witnesses should count as proof, but ascent speeds, doping doctors on the team and insane transformations shouldn't, are highly unlikely in the extreme to have been doubting lance 10 years ago, when on the face of it there was nothing but a few upset losers making up stories to sell a book

Excuse me, but in a polite way, let me ask you just who the **** do you think you are? I don't care what you think of Froome or Sky or Lance, but calling me a liar just to support your point? Pathetic.

I have watched this sport through Indurain to Froome, and yes, when Ullrich, Virenque and Zulle went down, I knew the chances Lance weren't doping were so slim it was borderline impossible. Coupled with the fact that people were willing to speak out against him in the cycling community and even within his team, I was fully detached from his victories. I felt that the public deification of him was even more distasteful, and in fact turned me away from the sport during the end of his era.

Regardless, I do believe there are clear differences in the culture of cycling, the resources of Sky as a team in comparison to it's rivals, and the stakeholders at the top of team sky in comparison to USP who were already tainted anyway like Bruyneel.

Think about the people who would have had to make the decision to organise a fully fledged systemic doping operation - while simultaneously espousing the contrary message of anti-doping - at a point where within 6 months, Lance was under federal investigation. Even if for some bizarre reason, James Murdoch and Dave Brailsford thought that was worth taking the risk with their own and the SKY reputation, how could they get 6 months in and watch a man who was protected by the UCI be completely torn to shreds publicly and continue?

Nobody ever answers those questions, because inconveniently for those who are convicting Sky/Froome by their own standards of evidence, there is plenty of logical reasoning that suggests it would take a lot of incredibly needless and bizarre decisions to be made by people with a lot to lose in order to start, finance and then cover up such behaviour.

So, just double checking - your argument is:

"It's really, really, REALLY different THIS time guys, just trust me!"

Yeah?

I think that if you take an effort to comprehend the argument you will find more in it than that. It's not an argument that is unsupported by reason.

 

[Mr.38%]

You're all forgetting the day he beat Tour de France winner Contador in a MTF

Who and I can't stress this enough, did not have any mechanical issues whatsoever on that MTF.

Never get tired of this one... It's a Walsh/Froome classic :lol:

A Michelle *** classic just as all of his twitter, which is unintentionally funny.

 

[elduggo]

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

found this video of Froome on a leash in the 2011 vuelta, riding conservatively (15 mins in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8DdEdhy0A

Notice him keeping the company of, and eventually beating, of that known clean rider, Cobo.

I was on that hill that day. I remember walking up it beforehand and thinking that it was so steep that I'd actually look forward to seeing the pros struggle up it. Then that happened.

About 20/30 minutes after the head of the race passed, I recall seeing Johan Van Summeren having to pedal back and forth across the road, the gradient was so steep.

I barely knew who Froome was at that stage. It wasn't a gradual rise from mediocrity to ridiculousness. It was instant. It was ridiculous, and it still is.

 

[Digger]

These great days followed by poor days by froome - as sky and their fans parrot pre 2011 - what great days? what good days?

 

[Digger]

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

So he learnt how to ride in four weeks from being 85th in Poland to riding toe to toe with cobo

show me an example of his 'talent' pre 2011 - the talent that was resulting in him losing his contract he was so ***