Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

@brownbobby

when you say lab testing.....do you mean the fax???? :lol: :lol:

the issue isn't "did he lose the fat"..the issue is how he lost the fat and kept the power

same with Wiggins, same with Kennaugh, same with G, same with........

He found the magic bullet some time around...mmmmmmmm...August 2011

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

Just for balance (and I do agree Froome was a donkey, just for the record), the one positive result in his palmares pre-2011 imo is his 2nd place in the 2010 British TT, a respectable 1:22 behind Wiggins.
Obviously a stretch to claim that's a reasonable sign of GT domination, but plenty of cyclists never get to that level.

Painting Froome as some kind of delusional Eddie the Eagle is an exaggeration also. He was a middle-of-the-pack domestique, but he wasn't a hopeless village idiot. He did know how to race a bike at least on a mediocre euro-pro level, and if Sky had kicked him out in 2011 he would have found another place somewhere.

Middle of the pack at lower level races, sure.

Froome - 2nd year pro - 35th in the Giro
Quintana - 2nd year pro - 36th in the Vuelta
Dumoulin - 2nd year pro - 41st in the Tour
Roglic - 2nd year pro - 38th in the Tour
Contador - 3rd year pro - 31st in the Tour

This looks very consistent. It''s certain that Froome is the equal of his contemporaries at this point. Of course none of the others had their team fold soon after.

I'll bite.

Froome - 2nd year pro - 35th in the Giro - Age 24, 2nd GT. Also pretty much the best result of his career until his 4th GT at age 26
Quintana - 2nd year pro - 36th in the Vuelta - Age 22, 1st GT. Finished second in his second GT at age 23
Roglic - 2nd year pro - 38th in the Tour - Won a time trial and a mountain stage in his first 2 GTs instead of riding GC
Contador - 3rd year pro - 31st in the Tour - Age 22, 1st GT. Won his second GT at age 24

I won't defend Dumoulin, but the guys above are quite clearly not equal. Even excluding results in non-GTs.

My post was in response to the idea that Froome was "middle of the pack at lower level races" when in reality his GT results were very similar to his contemporaries at the same point in their careers. In the 30s in 2nd/3rd year, on the podium in the 3rd/4th year. The others didn't have their team collapse in between though.

 

[brownbobby]

@brownbobby

when you say lab testing.....do you mean the fax???? :lol: :lol:

the issue isn't "did he lose the fat"..the issue is how he lost the fat and kept the power

same with Wiggins, same with Kennaugh, same with G, same with........

He found the magic bullet some time around...mmmmmmmm...August 2011

I mean the 2007 UCI lab results.....of course just passing off any data that goes against the agenda you're siding with as 'fake news' is a sure fire way to make sure you stay ahead in the debate, at least in your own mind

PS. from memory, i think the results show his peak power declined slightly from 2007-2016, which would be consistent with weight loss....but if its all faked anyway then i guess that's irrelevant too

 

[spalco]

Lab results are sort of anecdotal though. Even if it's true about Froome having astounding numbers as youth, it's incomplete data because we don't have numbers from most other riders to compare and it's also common for training beasts to fail to convert in competition for many reasons.

What happens on the road, we know for a fact and that's what counts.

 

[Saint Unix]

As you know/we all know, results pre 2011 showing this don't really exist, but lab testing did show he was at the upper end of human physiology....not at the very pinnacle of it, but certainly at the upper end.

Which is just incredible, isn't it? The guy who won the Tour is at the upper end of human physiology. Who'da thunk it?

The question is how he got there, and some rigged lab experiment organized by his team isn't going to answer that. All I know is he sure as hell wasn't there before 2011. Something changed dramatically.

 

[bigcog]

Well you'll be pleased to know he has officially won the Vuelta 2011 too

 

[Saint Unix]

... for now.

 

[rick james]

Re:

... for now.

LOL they all ready tried to get Froome….He's untouchable

 

[macbindle]

Ricky, just out of interest, do you think Froome is a clean rider?

 

[rick james]

No

 

[rick james]

Maybe

 

[rick james]

Could be, no one really knows...

 

[macbindle]

Re:

Could be, no one really knows...

We know some things...

We know for sure he did a Wiggins and had a huge dose of Cortisone to win Romandie in '14, and we know he had a gigantic dose of Salbutamol in his system during a GT for which other less important riders have been banned. We know his incredible transformation happened when Sky employed ex-Rabobank doping doctor, Leinders, and above all we know that for a clean rider to be on the verge of being one of the greatest GT riders ever would take one of the greatest physical specimens ever....which seems odd given his utter mediocrity all the way through his career up until some weird moment in the summer of 2011.

 

[rick james]

Yes you’ve summarised this massive thread into a small paragraph.....salbutamol he was cleared and rightly so..A TUE isn't illegal so I don’t know why you bring that up

 

[rick james]

I don't watch cycling to be cynical of the winners....if that’s what drives some people to watch sport then so be it

 

[macbindle]

I don't watch cycling to be cynical of the winners....if that’s what drives some people to watch sport then so be it

But here you are...constantly...on this thread which is solely concerned with whether Froome is a dope cheat...

...and always posting in defence of Froome, whether overtly or tacitly by mocking those weighing up the evidence.

 

[rick james]

Re:

I don't watch cycling to be cynical of the winners....if that’s what drives some people to watch sport then so be it

But here you are...constantly...on this thread which is solely concerned with whether Froome is a dope cheat...

...and always posting in defence of Froome, whether overtly or tacitly by mocking those weighing up the evidence.

I didn’t realise it was up to you where I post

 

[brownbobby]

As you know/we all know, results pre 2011 showing this don't really exist, but lab testing did show he was at the upper end of human physiology....not at the very pinnacle of it, but certainly at the upper end.

Which is just incredible, isn't it? The guy who won the Tour is at the upper end of human physiology. Who'da thunk it?

The question is how he got there, and some rigged lab experiment organized by his team isn't going to answer that. All I know is he sure as hell wasn't there before 2011. Something changed dramatically.

Well yeah, that's kinda the point if you'd taken the trouble to read the origin of this particular little sub debate....challenging the belief of some that results on the road alone show a complete lack of natural talent.

The question isn't how he got the physiology to become a multiple TDF winner, if you believe the data it was already there in 2007. The question, the eternal question, is how he applied that physiology post 2011 to turn s*#t results into total dominance.....

....and i repeat, if you're going to just brush off any data that doesn't align with your own theories as fake/rigged then you're never going to be wrong, are you

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

I don't watch cycling to be cynical of the winners....if that’s what drives some people to watch sport then so be it

But here you are...constantly...on this thread which is solely concerned with whether Froome is a dope cheat...

...and always posting in defence of Froome, whether overtly or tacitly by mocking those weighing up the evidence.

I didn’t realise it was up to you where I post

My post is in response to your post. That is why I quoted it.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

I don't watch cycling to be cynical of the winners....if that’s what drives some people to watch sport then so be it

But here you are...constantly...on this thread which is solely concerned with whether Froome is a dope cheat...

...and always posting in defence of Froome, whether overtly or tacitly by mocking those weighing up the evidence.

I didn’t realise it was up to you where I post

My post is in response to your post. That is why I quoted it.

Again why do you care where I post? Really it’s getting creepy

 

[macbindle]

You seem to struggle with quite a few simple concepts, but in this case with the notion that if you make a post on an internet forum somebody might reply to it.

 

[glassmoon]

So how thoroughly was he tested during Vuelta '11? We know, the stage winner and yellow rider are tested (after each stage) plus few random ones (less than 5 in total iirc). How credible those retrospective title awards really are (not just this Vuelta but others too)?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Miracle man is on his bike again... I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to believe the rumors that he wasn't as badly injured as the team said he was!

Also good luck trying to catch him retroactively (wrt the discussion about 2011 Vuelta above) they can't test for motors in retrospect

 

[spalco]

An amusing detail, which also shows how stupid awarding retroactive titles is, is: without cobo, does froome even win this race?

I think he would have stayed with wiggins on the angliru and then later on pena cabarga as well and never gotten a chance to overtake him.

 

[Parker]

Re:

Miracle man is on his bike again... I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I'm starting to believe the rumors that he wasn't as badly injured as the team said he was!

The report said he can sit on a bike and pedal with one leg. A person with one leg can sit on a bike and pedal with one leg, but it doesn't mean the other one has grown back.