Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[thehog]

Re: Re:

I guess this extends to any GT who has had continued success in a period. How do riders continue to never have a bad day? Froome rarely has a day that he looks weak and it has been 4 years now. Is it more good Luck that you do not get sick or feel blocked?

If you are on some sort of performance enhancing drugs your body does not get depleted and fatigued leading a decrease in the immune system, Armstrong had pretty much the same, rarely had a "sans jour".

Longer term effects, yet to be determined.

Well, he did contract cancer... so perhaps we do know.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I guess this extends to any GT who has had continued success in a period. How do riders continue to never have a bad day? Froome rarely has a day that he looks weak and it has been 4 years now. Is it more good Luck that you do not get sick or feel blocked?

I think you'll find Froome does get ill

(Prednisolone......shhhhhh )

 

[BYOP88]

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

he's on the old (badzilla) message

the new message is weight

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

...sour grapes?...surely tinkov is in position/has motivation to....expose!

Mark L

Who knows. If you read my posts you will see that my view is that all top teams are most likely doping, and to that extent I don't expect Tinkov to expose anybody.

The point of my last post is that Tinkov sees something in Froome that is beyond doping (and beyond Sky, actually). At least, that is my interpretation of what Tinkov is saying.

Or that Froome is a bigger responder to whatever it is that they're using than the everyone else.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

Agree with both.

Sky has budget to offer a strong team to a talented team leader. Froome currently looks to be the most talented.

You begin to wonder if it is a bit symbiotic. Could Froome succeed elsewhere?

With you on Wiggins vs Froome. I'll never warm to preppy boy Froome, but Wiggins was dragged up the hard way. Much more of a vulnerable, flawed character which for me makes him much more likeable than robotic Froome. Plus he goes 'off message' which is always a delight.

Why wouldn't he? Porte had his rough periods in the grand tours and still does (bad luck this year) but made it through the Tour this year while maintaining a consistent level of high performance.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Agree with both.

Sky has budget to offer a strong team to a talented team leader. Froome currently looks to be the most talented.

You begin to wonder if it is a bit symbiotic. Could Froome succeed elsewhere?

With you on Wiggins vs Froome. I'll never warm to preppy boy Froome, but Wiggins was dragged up the hard way. Much more of a vulnerable, flawed character which for me makes him much more likeable than robotic Froome. Plus he goes 'off message' which is always a delight.

Why wouldn't he? Porte had his rough periods in the grand tours and still does (bad luck this year) but made it through the Tour this year while maintaining a consistent level of high performance.

But did Porte succeed?

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Agree with both.

Sky has budget to offer a strong team to a talented team leader. Froome currently looks to be the most talented.

You begin to wonder if it is a bit symbiotic. Could Froome succeed elsewhere?

With you on Wiggins vs Froome. I'll never warm to preppy boy Froome, but Wiggins was dragged up the hard way. Much more of a vulnerable, flawed character which for me makes him much more likeable than robotic Froome. Plus he goes 'off message' which is always a delight.

Why wouldn't he? Porte had his rough periods in the grand tours and still does (bad luck this year) but made it through the Tour this year while maintaining a consistent level of high performance.

But did Porte succeed?

That depends on your definition of success. Had he not had his misfortunes it's likely he would have been on the podium, as that would've brought great joy to Froome to have his buddy on podium with him. Yes, I would call his Tour performance a success because it proved that he could compete in a grand tour at the highest level throughout the 3 weeks, without having that one bad day, performance wise.

 

[kwikki]

I don't disagree with you, but what I'm getting at is that he didn't win...he had those misfortunes...he didn't have the support that Froome had.

Or to look at it another way, could Froome have won with BMC (but Porte at Sky)?

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

...sour grapes?...surely tinkov is in position/has motivation to....expose!

Mark L

Who knows. If you read my posts you will see that my view is that all top teams are most likely doping, and to that extent I don't expect Tinkov to expose anybody.

The point of my last post is that Tinkov sees something in Froome that is beyond doping (and beyond Sky, actually). At least, that is my interpretation of what Tinkov is saying.

Or that Froome is a bigger responder to whatever it is that they're using than the everyone else.

That is just one of many possibilities, with others such as anti-doping authorities being complicit in allowing Froome to dope with impunity...that help us stave off the awful possibility that Froome might be just more talented . (Unlikely I agree)

Christ, who knows. I'd love to know. We'd all love to know. I don't even know if we'll ever know. This is quite frustrating, actually. I cannot bring myself to believe that GT winners do it clean, but the details are at present a mystery.

 

[SeriousSam]

It would be deeply mysterious indeed as to what the relative contribution of training, talent and doping is, if the only information we had is a cross section of rider performance. Then we'd conclude that the stronger rider is more talented, trains better and dopes more/responds better than the others.

But we are the lucky possessors of panel data, we get to observe performance of the same individuals over time! Advanced analysts can thus combine facts like talent being time invariant, patterns such as never-seen-before jumps in performance, and contextual information like official explanations of the performance jump being riddled with lies and inconsistencies, to arrive at a more sophisticated view.

This analysis has in fact been carried out here in the clinic. Now, admittedly, it's spread over many pages, long and involved, so here is the executive summary just for you: Froome is a super doper/super responder.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

Actually you can.

 

[kwikki]

It would be deeply mysterious indeed as to what the relative contribution of training, talent and doping is, if the only information we had is a cross section of rider performance. Then we'd conclude that the stronger rider is more talented, trains better and dopes more/responds better than the others.

But we are the lucky possessors of panel data, we get to observe performance of the same individuals over time! Advanced analysts can thus combine facts like talent being time invariant, patterns such as never-seen-before jumps in performance, and contextual information like official explanations of the performance jump being riddled with lies and inconsistencies, to arrive at a more sophisticated view.

This analysis has in fact been carried out here in the clinic. Now, admittedly, it's spread over many pages, long and involved, so here is the executive summary just for you: Froome is a super doper/super responder.

Well, you might be right.

Unfortunately, I'm not yet convinced of the analytical and reasoning powers of "The Clinic", although admittedly I've only read recent output. Far too much sloppy logic and jumping to conclusions. But some great thought provoking and informative stuff too.

 

[ggusta]

so is there a thread here, or elsewhere, on what SPECIFIC magic potions that Froome/Sky are implementing that others are not using, or do they simply hire the best riders that respond better to the same potions that everyone else is using?

Is that all it's about at this point, until some better potion comes along....finding the best riders who respond best to whatever 'program' is at the leading edge of science. And what does the leading edge consist of? And what is next around the corner? I really doubt that anyone (well virtually anyone, I will allow for some outliers) is totally clean at this point.

 

[rick james]

Re:

Tinkov is a clever dude and a blunt guy. Pretty sure he's implying I'll return if and when Froome gets popped and has to retire which will ultimately result in Sky having to disband.

so he is a blunt guy but beats around the bush about Froome getting popped? your post doesn't maker sense

 

[bikinggirl]

There is only few riders who has won all three grand tours and C. Froome is not one of them and will never be, just like Lance Armstrong. I hope Mr.Froome he will be court sooner then later. We are in the midst of the "British Wave" and as we watch the Sky train moving ahead and few other names surfaced we also witnessed the "American wave" evaporate with very few riders in this years TDF with a very "Poor" performance, and I will predict that the downfall will continue for American cycling in the coming years. The "Australien Wave" is ramping up and we will see it in full force in few years. First we will witness the "British Wave" downfall which will take place in two or three years time all depends on how the scientific improvement can nail the facts. Remember..Lance Armstong always said that he had never tested positive, same goes for C. Froome and Wiggins.
There are all cheaters.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Re: Re:

[quote="[
I'll bite. How about every single climb where his competitors were literally unable to create a gap because Froome's domestiques would just reel them in with no difficulty whatsoever? The ONLY dangerous rider who was allowed to get away without the doms putting the race in a chokehold was Richie, presumably as a favour for his service and to help him onto the podium. Even then Froome just sat on his wheel effortlessly. Bardet also got away, but that was when Froome crashed. After that the Sky doms were still bullying the rest of the GC contender group into submission every time they tried upping the pace, slowing them down and keeping the race completely neutralized until a banged-up Froome on the wrong bike had to let go at the end.

Froome was so strong he didn't have to attack in the mountains, and his team was so strong that they could prevent everyone else from attacking too. Considering the flak Froome has gotten every time he's done his deciding attacks on climbs (Ax-3-Domaines, Ventoux and PSM) it's very convenient for him to be able to win without having to do that again.

For me this was a race that should've put the entire team under scrutiny. I've never ever seen a team neutralize a race as dominantly as Sky did this year, and that's counting the USPS years. Forget the downhill attack and the echelons. Froome would have creamed everyone with his time trials alone. He didn't have to do anything at all on the other stages. His doms did it all for him. I will however say that the competition was a joke this year. I think a Quintana/Nibali/Contador in top shape would have cracked even Poels. Froome would've won it anyway, though. Doesn't matter which team he rides for.

Also, Froome rode an absolutely incredible 2nd time trial, which counts as a climb, to answer your questions with a specific example.

GOOD POST !

Made me laugh when Brailsford was interviewed yesterday saying FROOME WAS AN INCREDIBLY TALENTED RIDER - As usual Matt 'brown nose' Rendell didnt bother to ask him the obvious follow up question.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

Actually you can.

Seems my South African friends stitched me up good and proper there. Although they did say that catching it that way is unlikely, but I guess that sums up Froome nicely.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

Actually you can.

Only thing Is Froome never claimed he got it from drinking water. Got it from swimming in 'contaminated' water.

So it still makes Kirby a fanboy.

 

[Benotti69]

In case anyone forgot and maybe some newcomers never knew, but Brailsford thought Kimmage sceptical in 2009...

He handed me a copy of the team's recruitment strategy - a huge tome that must have weighed half a ton - and impressed on me that Sky would be different

Roger Palfreeman, the chief medical officer at British Cycling, would lead an internal testing programme.

The team would only employ British doctors, have a zero tolerance of doping and would not employ anyone who had been associated with doping. The staff would be "enthusiastic and positive, fit and healthy, and willing to try new things".

Sky lied. Sky lied big time from the beginning.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-tour-de-france-leader-chris-froome-would-be-well-advised-to-invite-questions-31386946.html

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Only thing Is Froome never claimed he got it from drinking water. Got it from swimming in 'contaminated' water.

So it still makes Kirby a fanboy.

As if Sky and the bot crew ever cared about sticking to a story

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

Actually you can.

Only thing Is Froome never claimed he got it from drinking water. Got it from swimming in 'contaminated' water.

So it still makes Kirby a fanboy.

Thank you for that completely irrelevant response, much appreciated.

Edit: That was harsh, I apologise. I just wanted to make it clear I was giving no opinion on Kirby, what he thinks or why he said what he said. I was just correcting an error.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Love this love letter by Kirby

https://twitter.com/140CharTerror/status/757578886326657025

Only problem, you don't get badzilla from drinking water.

Actually you can.

Seems my South African friends stitched me up good and proper there. Although they did say that catching it that way is unlikely, but I guess that sums up Froome nicely.

Unlikely compared to swimming in the water yes, I'm afraid I don't know the stats to say how much more unlikely and it's going to be hard to work out. It's more likely people keep their drinking water as clean as they can. If you're drinking water with schistosomes in it you're definitely washing/bathing in it as well so you wouldn't know where it came from.

 

[Cycle Chic]

oh god not Bilharzia AGAIN ! its been discussed ad infinitum

 

[thehog]

Reading a Lance article from 2002 it's funny how close it parallels to the current Sky rhetoric.

Sky even have their own version Carmichiel in Kerrison... usual stuff, low heart rate, 32 to beats per minute resting! works harder, of course there used to be doping but he does this without drugs because he works harder and yes, he even weights his food!

Haven't we been here before?

“It’s terribly unfair,” Bruyneel told me as we drove through the mountains. “He is already winning, and is extremely fit. Still, people always ask that one question: How can he do this without drugs? I understand why people ask, because our sport has been tainted. But Lance has a different trick, and I have watched him do it now for four years: he just works harder than anyone else alive.”

“Lance almost killed himself training for the last Tour,” Bruyneel told me. “This year, he is in even better shape. But the press still wants to talk about drugs.”

Lance Armstrong’s heart is almost a third larger than that of an average man. During those rare moments when he is at rest, it beats about thirty-two times a minute—slowly enough so that a doctor who knew nothing about him would call a hospital as soon as he heard it.

Armstrong was given a test called the VO2 Max, which is commonly used to assess an athlete’s aerobic ability: it measures the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs can consume during exercise. His levels were the highest ever recorded at the clinic. (Currently, they are about eighty-five millilitres per kilogram of body weight; a healthy man might have a VO2 Max of forty.)

Jeukendrup recorded the effort expended by a cyclist riding for six hours at forty kilometres an hour in the middle of the peloton, shielded from the wind. He compared this figure with the power needed to propel that same man riding alone. In the pack, the cyclist used an average of ninety-eight watts—which would never tire a well-trained professional. On his own, however, the cyclist expended an average of two hundred and seventy-five watts—nearly three times the power—to maintain the same speed. It is easy to see what this means: in any race, the guy out front is often suffering in his attempt to lead the peloton, while somebody like Armstrong, safely tucked into a cocoon of teammates, can cruise just a few yards behind the leader and be “pulled” at essentially the same speed, conserving energy for later.

Carmichael believes that rigorous training is what ultimately turns a talented athlete into a star. “Who hits more practice balls every day than any other golfer?” Carmichael asked. “Guess what? It’s Tiger Woods. Well, Lance trains more than his competitors. He was the first to go out and actually ride the important Tour stages in advance. He doesn’t just wake up in July and say, ‘God, I hope I am ready for this race.’ He knows he is ready, because he has whipped himself all year long.”

During the cycling season, Armstrong calculates each watt he has burned on his bike and then uses a digital scale to weigh every morsel of food that passes his lips. This way, he knows exactly how many calories he needs to get through the day.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/15/the-long-ride