-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
Why exactly does UCI or WADA have to prove that there is a positive test, when a urinary level above 1200 ng/ml is defined as positive? He doesn't specify, but here's my interpretation. Begin with the fact that any detectable amount of a substance that is not found endogenously—e.g., clenbuterol—is a positive, and one does not have to prove this, other than establish that the correct testing procedures were followed. If one molecule of CB is found in the body, that’s too much (unless it can be proven to have been ingested accidentally through contamination). But when banned substances are found endogenously—e.g., testosterone, EPO, growth hormone—one has to prove that a synthetic, exogenous equivalent is detected, and this is usually done through a test that involves some degree of probability. E.g., the testosterone isotope test has to prove that the concentrations of certain isotopes are 3-4 standard deviations beyond what could occur naturally.
This same approach could apply to salbutamol, and this is apparently what Froome’s team is doing, assuming they’re basing their case on Heuberger’s theoretical model of salbutamol excretion. The argument is that UCI/WADA has to prove that the probability of an athlete taking the maximum allowed amount, 800 ug, and exceeding a urinary level of 1200 ng/ml, is sufficiently low to rule out chance. And what Froome’s team may be claiming is that while WADA has demonstrated that the probability of a positive as a result of chance is quite low, they have never set an exact criterion. That is, while there are a lot of studies showing that when subjects inhale 800 ug, they almost never exceed 1200 ng/ml, there doesn’t seem to have been any study in which the actual probability of exceeding that limit was calculated.
Into that void steps Heuberger et al. They estimate a value for that probability, and while I’ve shown that it doesn’t agree well with actual empirical studies, in the absence of an actual estimated value based on these studies, they can claim this as the standard. What Morgan and the team may be doing is saying, since you don’t have a specific probability associated with your threshold or limit, that limit is invalid. You can't say that 1200 ng/ml is valid without specifying the probability of exceeding this.
Anderson goes on to say that this is a very difficult argument to make, and he doubts this approach will work, Froome will probably get a ban. But he also notes that his team has a right to make the argument. So even if Froome doesn’t win, a second purpose of the argument may be simply to make the case so complex that there is justification for going beyond the Tour. Froome could very well end up with a ban after the Tour, but since he gets to keep the results of both that and the Giro, he would have achieved a significant victory. If this happens, credit can be given to coming up with an argument which, though unlikely to carry the day, is able to delay the case successfully.
I don’t understand this. Froome should not want a back-dated ban, unless it’s very short, so that it ends before the Giro. That would be the best case scenario given some kind of ban, but a longer back-dated ban, which stripped him of the Giro, would probably be worse, from his point of view, then a proactive ban.
Finally, Anderson points out something I hadn’t been aware of, that UCI has the power to impose a provisional sanction on Froome at any time:
This is really interesting. So now it seems Lappartient himself has the power to suspend Froome. Why doesn't he do that? Does he even know that he can? Or would he rather someone else did it?
bigcog said:
Why exactly does UCI or WADA have to prove that there is a positive test, when a urinary level above 1200 ng/ml is defined as positive? He doesn't specify, but here's my interpretation. Begin with the fact that any detectable amount of a substance that is not found endogenously—e.g., clenbuterol—is a positive, and one does not have to prove this, other than establish that the correct testing procedures were followed. If one molecule of CB is found in the body, that’s too much (unless it can be proven to have been ingested accidentally through contamination). But when banned substances are found endogenously—e.g., testosterone, EPO, growth hormone—one has to prove that a synthetic, exogenous equivalent is detected, and this is usually done through a test that involves some degree of probability. E.g., the testosterone isotope test has to prove that the concentrations of certain isotopes are 3-4 standard deviations beyond what could occur naturally.
This same approach could apply to salbutamol, and this is apparently what Froome’s team is doing, assuming they’re basing their case on Heuberger’s theoretical model of salbutamol excretion. The argument is that UCI/WADA has to prove that the probability of an athlete taking the maximum allowed amount, 800 ug, and exceeding a urinary level of 1200 ng/ml, is sufficiently low to rule out chance. And what Froome’s team may be claiming is that while WADA has demonstrated that the probability of a positive as a result of chance is quite low, they have never set an exact criterion. That is, while there are a lot of studies showing that when subjects inhale 800 ug, they almost never exceed 1200 ng/ml, there doesn’t seem to have been any study in which the actual probability of exceeding that limit was calculated.
Into that void steps Heuberger et al. They estimate a value for that probability, and while I’ve shown that it doesn’t agree well with actual empirical studies, in the absence of an actual estimated value based on these studies, they can claim this as the standard. What Morgan and the team may be doing is saying, since you don’t have a specific probability associated with your threshold or limit, that limit is invalid. You can't say that 1200 ng/ml is valid without specifying the probability of exceeding this.
Anderson goes on to say that this is a very difficult argument to make, and he doubts this approach will work, Froome will probably get a ban. But he also notes that his team has a right to make the argument. So even if Froome doesn’t win, a second purpose of the argument may be simply to make the case so complex that there is justification for going beyond the Tour. Froome could very well end up with a ban after the Tour, but since he gets to keep the results of both that and the Giro, he would have achieved a significant victory. If this happens, credit can be given to coming up with an argument which, though unlikely to carry the day, is able to delay the case successfully.
I don’t understand this. Froome should not want a back-dated ban, unless it’s very short, so that it ends before the Giro. That would be the best case scenario given some kind of ban, but a longer back-dated ban, which stripped him of the Giro, would probably be worse, from his point of view, then a proactive ban.
Finally, Anderson points out something I hadn’t been aware of, that UCI has the power to impose a provisional sanction on Froome at any time:
This is really interesting. So now it seems Lappartient himself has the power to suspend Froome. Why doesn't he do that? Does he even know that he can? Or would he rather someone else did it?
Since ASO is getting serious in here I am going to be bold here and say that he will lose the Vuelta (obviously, we all knew that) and that's it. He will be banned from date forward. 6-9 months. So no Tour or worlds for him. No backdate because that would allow him to ride the Tour if less than 9 months.
Re:
I have a feeling at this point that this is the most likely outcome. Although I would prefer to see a full 12 month ban from the date of the decision.
Escarabajo said:
I have a feeling at this point that this is the most likely outcome. Although I would prefer to see a full 12 month ban from the date of the decision.
Re:
Seems like Froome will be at TdF whatever happens - no decision or an appealed decision. Froome could win the Worlds yet before it's all decided.
bigcog said:
Seems like Froome will be at TdF whatever happens - no decision or an appealed decision. Froome could win the Worlds yet before it's all decided.
Re: Re:
There is the possibility that Froome himself decides not to ride the Tour because he isn't fully recovered from the Giro. Everyone gets to save face in that situation. Thing is, with it being a potential 5th TDF, it should be a special one where he makes a speech at the end, gets congratulated by Hinault and Merckx for joining their club etc. Being in that situation when he knows the ASO don't even want him there, Hinault being outspoken on the subject etc would to some extent spoil what should be the crowning moment of his career.
Robert5091 said:
There is the possibility that Froome himself decides not to ride the Tour because he isn't fully recovered from the Giro. Everyone gets to save face in that situation. Thing is, with it being a potential 5th TDF, it should be a special one where he makes a speech at the end, gets congratulated by Hinault and Merckx for joining their club etc. Being in that situation when he knows the ASO don't even want him there, Hinault being outspoken on the subject etc would to some extent spoil what should be the crowning moment of his career.
It was talked about months ago and I think we already had it somewhere around here.
But I remember that Lappy saying afterwards that they never did it for salbutamol and will most likely not do it.
Re:
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now. Whether he will be quite as laughable as Froome, we shall see, but the comic tragedy shall indeed write itself yet another act...
And some of us will again come to the sad realization thereof, while others like you, seemingly, will not.
To think this has anything to do with emotions is a fool’s errand. It has to do with reality. The only people relying on emotion here are those trying to rationalize the reality away.
dacooley said:all the troubles income from not wanting to see froome a winner of big races. get over yourself boys and girls and cycling will bloom in all its brilliance.while reading the thread you can see pretty much nothing but anger, envy, cynism, innuendos and unconcealed double standarts which is the saddest one, because one doper gets preferred to another one. just a few people are really willing to be objective, all the others for year bathe in the good old so called arguments such as 'only not froome', 'froome is a joke', 'i'm sick of froome' etc. eventually there's good news too and the story of froome as an active cyclist is nearing to its end, but you, ladies and gentlemen, will be missing him like no one else, as once he quits or gets banned, you will have no cyclist to insult, make fun of, mock and compete in black humor. no rider will arise so many low emotions in your aflutter fan souls, so have a special moment to cherish as long as christopher cleeve froome is still riding.
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now. Whether he will be quite as laughable as Froome, we shall see, but the comic tragedy shall indeed write itself yet another act...
And some of us will again come to the sad realization thereof, while others like you, seemingly, will not.
To think this has anything to do with emotions is a fool’s errand. It has to do with reality. The only people relying on emotion here are those trying to rationalize the reality away.
Re: Re:
Self fulfilling prophecy.....,a perfect example of
Bannockburn said:dacooley said:all the troubles income from not wanting to see froome a winner of big races. get over yourself boys and girls and cycling will bloom in all its brilliance.while reading the thread you can see pretty much nothing but anger, envy, cynism, innuendos and unconcealed double standarts which is the saddest one, because one doper gets preferred to another one. just a few people are really willing to be objective, all the others for year bathe in the good old so called arguments such as 'only not froome', 'froome is a joke', 'i'm sick of froome' etc. eventually there's good news too and the story of froome as an active cyclist is nearing to its end, but you, ladies and gentlemen, will be missing him like no one else, as once he quits or gets banned, you will have no cyclist to insult, make fun of, mock and compete in black humor. no rider will arise so many low emotions in your aflutter fan souls, so have a special moment to cherish as long as christopher cleeve froome is still riding.
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now. Whether he will be quite as laughable as Froome, we shall see, but the comic tragedy shall indeed write itself yet another act...
And some of us will again come to the sad realization thereof, while others like you, seemingly, will not.
To think this has anything to do with emotions is a fool’s errand. It has to do with reality. The only people relying on emotion here are those trying to rationalize the reality away.
Self fulfilling prophecy.....,a perfect example of
Re: Re:
There is also a bit more to it than statistics (even though that's enough on itself to bet), the nasty fact is that it's very unlikely everyone is clean, whcih means to demolish the opposition the athlete in question is not just beating the best undoped riders, he's also beating the doped ones). Sadly, that's really unlikely.
Froome though is a special case due to Dave Brailsford. I find Chris a funny, even decent guy who dopes. However the whole circus around him is so immoral and plain abusive that he needs to be brought down. By tieing himself to Brailsford, one of the more destructive forces in cycling, he made his own bed.
Exactly. An easy blind bet for any GT winner to be a doper, if only by the overwhelming numbers. Same as athletes winning the Olympic/worlds 100 metres. You would be an utter idiot to think any winner is anywhere near "clean".Escarabajo said:
There is also a bit more to it than statistics (even though that's enough on itself to bet), the nasty fact is that it's very unlikely everyone is clean, whcih means to demolish the opposition the athlete in question is not just beating the best undoped riders, he's also beating the doped ones). Sadly, that's really unlikely.
Froome though is a special case due to Dave Brailsford. I find Chris a funny, even decent guy who dopes. However the whole circus around him is so immoral and plain abusive that he needs to be brought down. By tieing himself to Brailsford, one of the more destructive forces in cycling, he made his own bed.
Re: Re:
to be fair post-epo we are used to transparent frauds but some are more transparently fraudulent than others...and to re-use my Big Fun analogy...froome is Big Fun and SDB is SAW
I agree that our hapless hero is needed in the play that is pro-cycling, if only in tragi-comedic way...however when it gets to the stage of him being placed alongside Hinault and Mercxk then the fun must stop
Cohen, Dylan, Darius
Mercxk, Hinault, Froome
Bannockburn said:dacooley said:all the troubles income from not wanting to see froome a winner of big races. get over yourself boys and girls and cycling will bloom in all its brilliance.while reading the thread you can see pretty much nothing but anger, envy, cynism, innuendos and unconcealed double standarts which is the saddest one, because one doper gets preferred to another one. just a few people are really willing to be objective, all the others for year bathe in the good old so called arguments such as 'only not froome', 'froome is a joke', 'i'm sick of froome' etc. eventually there's good news too and the story of froome as an active cyclist is nearing to its end, but you, ladies and gentlemen, will be missing him like no one else, as once he quits or gets banned, you will have no cyclist to insult, make fun of, mock and compete in black humor. no rider will arise so many low emotions in your aflutter fan souls, so have a special moment to cherish as long as christopher cleeve froome is still riding.
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now. Whether he will be quite as laughable as Froome, we shall see, but the comic tragedy shall indeed write itself yet another act...
And some of us will again come to the sad realization thereof, while others like you, seemingly, will not.
To think this has anything to do with emotions is a fool’s errand. It has to do with reality. The only people relying on emotion here are those trying to rationalize the reality away.
to be fair post-epo we are used to transparent frauds but some are more transparently fraudulent than others...and to re-use my Big Fun analogy...froome is Big Fun and SDB is SAW
I agree that our hapless hero is needed in the play that is pro-cycling, if only in tragi-comedic way...however when it gets to the stage of him being placed alongside Hinault and Mercxk then the fun must stop
Cohen, Dylan, Darius
Mercxk, Hinault, Froome
Re: Re:
1992 Miguel Indurain Doper
1993 Miguel Indurain Doper
1994 Miguel Indurain Doper
1995 Miguel Indurain Doper
1996 Bjarne Riis Doper
1997 Jan Ullrich Doper
1998 Marco Pantani Doper
1999 Lance Armstrong Doper
2000 Lance Armstrong Doper
2001 Lance Armstrong Doper
2002 Lance Armstrong Doper
2003 Lance Armstrong Doper
2004 Lance Armstrong Doper
2005 Lance Armstrong Doper
2006 Floyd Landis Doper
2007 Alberto Contador Doper
2008 Carlos Sastre
2009 Alberto Contador Doper
2010 Alberto Contador Doper
2011 Cadel Evans
2012 Bradley Wiggins [Jiffy Bag]
2013 Chris Froome Doper [To Be Confirmed]
2014 Vincenzo Nibali
2015 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
2016 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
2017 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
1991 Miguel Indurain DoperBannockburn said:
1992 Miguel Indurain Doper
1993 Miguel Indurain Doper
1994 Miguel Indurain Doper
1995 Miguel Indurain Doper
1996 Bjarne Riis Doper
1997 Jan Ullrich Doper
1998 Marco Pantani Doper
1999 Lance Armstrong Doper
2000 Lance Armstrong Doper
2001 Lance Armstrong Doper
2002 Lance Armstrong Doper
2003 Lance Armstrong Doper
2004 Lance Armstrong Doper
2005 Lance Armstrong Doper
2006 Floyd Landis Doper
2007 Alberto Contador Doper
2008 Carlos Sastre
2009 Alberto Contador Doper
2010 Alberto Contador Doper
2011 Cadel Evans
2012 Bradley Wiggins [Jiffy Bag]
2013 Chris Froome Doper [To Be Confirmed]
2014 Vincenzo Nibali
2015 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
2016 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
2017 Chris Froome Doper [TBC]
Froome's major problem will always be the fact that there were 2 versions of the same cyclist - before and after August 2011.
Given the history of the sport there is no logical explanation for his transformation in such a short time period. If he had shown some level of pedigree there would still be plenty of scepticism but he wouldn't attract near the same level of derision that he currently does. Many other top cyclists are known dopers or were strongly suspected of doping but none attract the same level of derision that Froome presently does.
The other factor that works against him is the team that he is employed by. Big, brash, deceitful, arrogant, powerful and full of PR bluster, they have tried to take the public for a ride since very shortly after their inception. I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Given the history of the sport there is no logical explanation for his transformation in such a short time period. If he had shown some level of pedigree there would still be plenty of scepticism but he wouldn't attract near the same level of derision that he currently does. Many other top cyclists are known dopers or were strongly suspected of doping but none attract the same level of derision that Froome presently does.
The other factor that works against him is the team that he is employed by. Big, brash, deceitful, arrogant, powerful and full of PR bluster, they have tried to take the public for a ride since very shortly after their inception. I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Singer01
BANNED
Re:
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a sh!t about doping, but they do give a sh!t about xenophobia and personalities.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.ontheroad said:
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a sh!t about doping, but they do give a sh!t about xenophobia and personalities.
but thats the thing about Nibali,he doesnt shove it in your face with alien performance and then tell you he is just smarter and works harder than you
same thing with Indurain,at least he has the decency to keep his mouth shut
armstrong was an as*hole,thats why he got popped
we all know GT winners are dopers,the difference is some know how to act and some go so much beyond whats acceptable and after race come up with some science mumbo jumbo like they have figured out the meaning of life and we are all monkeys? f*ck them,they deserve everything coming their way
same thing with Indurain,at least he has the decency to keep his mouth shut
armstrong was an as*hole,thats why he got popped
we all know GT winners are dopers,the difference is some know how to act and some go so much beyond whats acceptable and after race come up with some science mumbo jumbo like they have figured out the meaning of life and we are all monkeys? f*ck them,they deserve everything coming their way
Re:
OK, let's propose a few options:
A. Froome is a product of strictly confidential labaratorian experiment, launched by Sky and Murdoch money, that enabled 3rd tier rolleur reborn into the best rider in the world
B. Froome really had some chest infection or something, which he's surely not outspoken about. As a result, this disease (fake or real) allowed him to recieve dozens of TUEs and lead him to using as much doping as he needs to destroy any field
C. Combination of A & B
D. Prior 2011, Froome was handled completely incorrectly training- and specialization-wise, while working with Kerrison alongside with extreme weight loss discovered a hidden talent
E. Grotesque mixture out of A, B, C and D
What option would you go with?
ontheroad said:
OK, let's propose a few options:
A. Froome is a product of strictly confidential labaratorian experiment, launched by Sky and Murdoch money, that enabled 3rd tier rolleur reborn into the best rider in the world
B. Froome really had some chest infection or something, which he's surely not outspoken about. As a result, this disease (fake or real) allowed him to recieve dozens of TUEs and lead him to using as much doping as he needs to destroy any field
C. Combination of A & B
D. Prior 2011, Froome was handled completely incorrectly training- and specialization-wise, while working with Kerrison alongside with extreme weight loss discovered a hidden talent
E. Grotesque mixture out of A, B, C and D
What option would you go with?
Re:
Are you honestly ranking GT winners who doped into good and bad dopers lol? You either have Omerta on one side ot lies on another and the foundation for both is cheating by doping with products that are prohibited and evade anti-doping by either lies or omerta. End result is the same thing so there is no correct 'how to act' side to it that's just surface fluff to the main issue really where all riders and teams essentially lie to explain performance if they are doping.
saganftw said:
Are you honestly ranking GT winners who doped into good and bad dopers lol? You either have Omerta on one side ot lies on another and the foundation for both is cheating by doping with products that are prohibited and evade anti-doping by either lies or omerta. End result is the same thing so there is no correct 'how to act' side to it that's just surface fluff to the main issue really where all riders and teams essentially lie to explain performance if they are doping.
Re: Re:
Gillian ... I must be nearly as old as you, old as you or older than you. Adore both Cohen and Dylan. Icons.
Dylan ... they called him "Judas" in Manchester; he never forgave them. No wonder.
Trying to hold onto the romance of the past ... by shunning the new ... makes us old long before our time.
gillan1969 said:Bannockburn said:dacooley said:all the troubles income from not wanting to see froome a winner of big races. get over yourself boys and girls and cycling will bloom in all its brilliance.while reading the thread you can see pretty much nothing but anger, envy, cynism, innuendos and unconcealed double standarts which is the saddest one, because one doper gets preferred to another one. just a few people are really willing to be objective, all the others for year bathe in the good old so called arguments such as 'only not froome', 'froome is a joke', 'i'm sick of froome' etc. eventually there's good news too and the story of froome as an active cyclist is nearing to its end, but you, ladies and gentlemen, will be missing him like no one else, as once he quits or gets banned, you will have no cyclist to insult, make fun of, mock and compete in black humor. no rider will arise so many low emotions in your aflutter fan souls, so have a special moment to cherish as long as christopher cleeve froome is still riding.
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now. Whether he will be quite as laughable as Froome, we shall see, but the comic tragedy shall indeed write itself yet another act...
And some of us will again come to the sad realization thereof, while others like you, seemingly, will not.
To think this has anything to do with emotions is a fool’s errand. It has to do with reality. The only people relying on emotion here are those trying to rationalize the reality away.
to be fair post-epo we are used to transparent frauds but some are more transparently fraudulent than others...and to re-use my Big Fun analogy...froome is Big Fun and SDB is SAW
I agree that our hapless hero is needed in the play that is pro-cycling, if only in tragi-comedic way...however when it gets to the stage of him being placed alongside Hinault and Mercxk then the fun must stop
Cohen, Dylan, Darius
Mercxk, Hinault, Froome
Gillian ... I must be nearly as old as you, old as you or older than you. Adore both Cohen and Dylan. Icons.
Dylan ... they called him "Judas" in Manchester; he never forgave them. No wonder.
Trying to hold onto the romance of the past ... by shunning the new ... makes us old long before our time.
Re: Re:
Sandro Donati once gave David Walsh a piece of advice: "going after Lance Armstrong couldn't be what it was all about because the bigger picture was what mattered. Cycling was far more important than one competitor and if you pursue one and become too associated with that pursuit, that is not good." Walsh ignored it. The self-satisified keyboard warriors who believe they brought down LA ignore it.
So let's get this clear: in today's League of Transparent Frauds there's Froome ... and no one else? It is only when Froome goes that ... another Transparent Fraud will arise? Or could it be that it is only then that the vocal few will see through another Fraud and declare him the new Dalai Lama of Doping?Bannockburn said:
Sandro Donati once gave David Walsh a piece of advice: "going after Lance Armstrong couldn't be what it was all about because the bigger picture was what mattered. Cycling was far more important than one competitor and if you pursue one and become too associated with that pursuit, that is not good." Walsh ignored it. The self-satisified keyboard warriors who believe they brought down LA ignore it.
Re: Re:
Ahhh ... Re-Education Camp ... can't live with it ... can't live without it. :geek:
fmk_RoI said:
Ahhh ... Re-Education Camp ... can't live with it ... can't live without it. :geek:
Re: Re:
Another thing to throw in the mix, obviously i'm going to get ridiculed for this by some, but here goes....i know it started a few years earlier, but around 2010/2011, the Athletes Bio Passport really started to bite i think. I'm not saying it put an end to doping, but i certainly think it at least put the brakes on the free for all oxygen vector doping methods of the previous 2 decades.
So as well as some of the factors listed above, did it gradually become possible to win races, if not clean, then at least without the ridiculous game changing levels of previous doping?
Yes, i know the speed races are ridden at haven't slowed down dramatically, but speed, without context, isn't the most useful of metrics.
Just another point for discussion....not saying it provides an answer to the Froome conundrum
dacooley said:
Another thing to throw in the mix, obviously i'm going to get ridiculed for this by some, but here goes....i know it started a few years earlier, but around 2010/2011, the Athletes Bio Passport really started to bite i think. I'm not saying it put an end to doping, but i certainly think it at least put the brakes on the free for all oxygen vector doping methods of the previous 2 decades.
So as well as some of the factors listed above, did it gradually become possible to win races, if not clean, then at least without the ridiculous game changing levels of previous doping?
Yes, i know the speed races are ridden at haven't slowed down dramatically, but speed, without context, isn't the most useful of metrics.
Just another point for discussion....not saying it provides an answer to the Froome conundrum
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 12: Martinsicuro – Fano, 193.0k- Started by DenisMenchov
- Replies: 346
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 24, Stage 10: Pompei – Cusano Mutri (Bocca della Selva), 142.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 359
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 8: Spoleto – Prati di Tivo, 152.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 592
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 7: Foligno – Perugia, 40.6k (ITT)
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 626
-
Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 11: Foiano di Val Fortore – Francavilla al Mare, 207.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 154
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 9: Avezzano – Napoli, 214.0k
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 334
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2024: Stage-by-stage analysis- Latest: Zoetemelk-fan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram