Froome's Acceleration on the Bike ??

[coinneach]

Do you recall the quick witted Australian journalist who in a press conference at the Tour popped Froome the question "do you do specialist leg speed training"? No came the reply from Froome, "not at all". Obviously unaware that Kerrision had written an article to the contrary.

OK I have said my view on this, and I believe in the use of bike technology as being the real reason for "Froomes acceleration" in the saddle.

I have had discussions with other cyclists who have said the bike motor thing was all a hoax. May be so in part, but hasn't cycling advances always gone hand in hand with a} doping the human body and b) bike technology advancements.

Are folk aware Chris Hoy started sprinting sitting down at the last olympics?
he reckoned it gave him an advantage, if for no other reason than it confused his opponents

 

[thehog]

Do you recall the quick witted Australian journalist who in a press conference at the Tour popped Froome the question "do you do specialist leg speed training"? No came the reply from Froome, "not at all". Obviously unaware that Kerrision had written an article to the contrary.

OK I have said my view on this, and I believe in the use of bike technology as being the real reason for "Froomes acceleration" in the saddle.

I have had discussions with other cyclists who have said the bike motor thing was all a hoax. May be so in part, but hasn't cycling advances always gone hand in hand with a} doping the human body and b) bike technology advancements.

Apparently it was just for fun. According to Tim Carmichael .

His parents worried about his future for they did not see much point in bike-riding. Jane Froome had her doubts confirmed when, watching him ride for the first time in that same race, she saw her son being shelled from the back of the peloton. As Edwards drove the team car she asked him a gentle yet pointed question: "Is Chris any good at riding a bike?"

Edwards did not have a convincing answer; but he knew Froome was exceedingly bright and that "he smashed out the distinctions at university. Chris's intelligence is a huge factor in his career."

That intelligence has strengthened his bond with Tim Kerrison, Sky's deeply scientific head of performance. Clarity and rigour link Kerrison and Robbie Nilsen, the attorney who helped Froome unleash his intellect in the cycling domain when they started an under-23 team together at the Hi-Q cycling academy in Johannesburg.

The attorney and the student lost themselves in the science of cycling. Nilsen, who dreamed of one day coaching a South African in the Tour de France, offered Froome structure and a tangible intellectual partnership. They were fanatical about uncovering the secrets of sporting improvement and Nilsen recognised that "Chris had a hell of talent – but it was absolutely untapped. It felt as if we were doing these amazing field experiments to make him a much better rider. His true ability started to emerge."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/22/chris-froome-tour-de-france

 

[peloton]

"It happened more than a decade ago and we need to stop talking about it now."

http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...move-forward-by-giving-full-account-of-doping

I guess 2009 and 2010 didn't happen then...

 

[the sceptic]

I guess Lance stopped doping in 2003 too.

 

[sittingbison]

Armstrong insists he will be happy to take part and answer any questions with "100 per cent transparency and honesty".

I know its not the Armstrong thread, but I did laugh at this oxymoron

 

[sniper]

surprisingly wise words from froome re armstrong.
though he's wrong about putting the story to bed.
nothing should and nothing will be put to bed.

 

[thehog]

surprisingly wise words from froome re armstrong.
though he's wrong about putting the story to bed.
nothing should and nothing will be put to bed.

Well goes to show he'll just say anything he's told to say.

 

[RownhamHill]

surprisingly wise words from froome re armstrong.
though he's wrong about putting the story to bed.
nothing should and nothing will be put to bed.

Funny you should say that, as I saw Froome's words and and started wondering whether this was an occasion where your own obsession with limited hangouts might not be so wide of the mark. . .

 

[red_flanders]

Froome added: "There is still so much that needs to be explained, needs to be elaborated on in order for everyone to be able to put this story to bed and, finally, move on from this.

"There is still a lot of good that can be done through what he (Armstrong) has to say. And I think it would eventually put an end to that story and allow the rest of us to carry on with our careers.”

"I don't think it's good for the current situation of the sport to be lingering on what's happened in the past.

Yes, Lance, please bring the media and sport's focus away from my absurd performances which are the equal of yours, and back to you while I prep for another run at the Tour.

Please allow me to talk about how this is all in the past, and position myself as different and new...just like you did in '99.

We must all move on.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[EnacheV]

so anybody found the motor inside the bike ? i mean, the original subject here?

no? keep looking, it's worth another 1000's posts to become an even more valuable member of the clinic inner circle of trust

 

[EnacheV]

Yes, Lance, please bring the media and sport's focus away from my absurd performances which are the equal of yours, and back to you while I prep for another run at the Tour.

Please allow me to talk about how this is all in the past, and position myself as different and new...just like you did in '99.

We must all move on.

Rinse and repeat.

Froome : Please Lance keep omerta
Flanders : Doper!

Froome : Please Lance be 100% honest
Flanders : Doper!

When you believe in something like a taliban the truth doesn't matter.

 

[Benotti69]

Froome : Please Lance keep omerta
Flanders : Doper!

Froome : Please Lance be 100% honest
Flanders : Doper!

When you believe in something like a taliban the truth doesn't matter.

Poor little EnacheY, is Froomey looking a bit stupid saying that the Lance era was 10 years ago, when it only ended 3 years ago.

Boy do Sky really get their BS PR so wrong!

 

[red_flanders]

Froome : Please Lance keep omerta
Flanders : Doper!

Froome : Please Lance be 100% honest
Flanders : Doper!

When you believe in something like a taliban the truth doesn't matter.

I have to chuckle at that.

What Froome says does indeed have no bearing on my opinion of his cleanliness or lack thereof. I think he's doping and nothing he says will convince me that he's dirty or clean.

That doesn't change the fact that it's hilarious that cyclists have been using the same lines since Festina, and Froome is simply the latest. And un-critical people will lap it up as if it means anything. That's what I find remarkable about it.

Clearly no one is going to convince you that he's dirty any more than they can convince me he's clean. The only thing that would convince me would be for him to ride in some kind of fashion I could construe as approaching normal.

And the thread is about accelerations on the bike, not motors in the bike, despite the original post.

 

[EnacheV]

The only thing that would convince me would be for him to ride in some kind of fashion I could construe as approaching normal.

This is the big mistake you and others make. You think you are skilled enough to see and decide what's "normal" for a cyclist.

You aren't. Your "normal" is denied by reality, like a theory that is negated by counter-examples.

P.S. the chance that your "what's normal" theory is wrong is 100,000 (the troll will ask me why not 10,000, from where the 100,000 is) higher than the chance Froome is doped. I rather believe you are wrong, most chances.

 

[the sceptic]

This is the big mistake you and others make. You think you are skilled enough to see and decide what's "normal" for a cyclist.

You aren't. Your "normal" is denied by reality, like a theory that is negated by counter-examples.

P.S. the chance that your "what's normal" theory is wrong is 100,000 (the troll will ask me why not 10,000, from where the 100,000 is) higher than the chance Froome is doped. I rather believe you are wrong, most chances.

Well that clears things up then.

 

[red_flanders]

This is the big mistake you and others make. You think you are skilled enough to see and decide what's "normal" for a cyclist.

You aren't. Your "normal" is denied by reality, like a theory that is negated by counter-examples.

P.S. the chance that your "what's normal" theory is wrong is 100,000 (the troll will ask me why not 10,000, from where the 100,000 is) higher than the chance Froome is doped. I rather believe you are wrong, most chances.

Well, I've been following racing and cycling since the mid 70's, watching the tour in Belgium since I was a little kid. I grew up with relatively normal racing in front of me, and watched it change dramatically. I have a fairly sound grasp on what's normal, and a sound grasp of math which backs it up. At the top right now? Mostly not normal.

Go ahead and lap up the drivel from Froome. Your "belief" that I'm in error is immaterial to the facts.

Just for fun, I would like someone to explain to me exactly how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in. How exactly is he able to [paraphrase]match the performances of former dopers [/paraphrase] as his coach claims. What has he done to increase his performance some 15% over the era when people did not have access to oxygen vector doping?

I'm talking serious changes in human performance. There is bike weight (now stabilized), road surface and some better training and specialization. I'll give you a total of 5% increase for the sum of all that.

Someone give me the source of double all that to explain what we're seeing. Someone serious. Someone who actually believes this is explainable and has the facts to back it up or at least a plausible explanation for a ~10% performance increase which is totally to this point unexplained. Thanks. Like I said, I'm patient. I've been waiting for 20+ years.

 

[peloton]

This is the big mistake you and others make. You think you are skilled enough to see and decide what's "normal" for a cyclist.

You aren't. Your "normal" is denied by reality, like a theory that is negated by counter-examples.

P.S. the chance that your "what's normal" theory is wrong is 100,000 (the troll will ask me why not 10,000, from where the 100,000 is) higher than the chance Froome is doped. I rather believe you are wrong, most chances.

Keep believing in miracles, worked out well the last time.

 

[red_flanders]

And just to be clear, I'm not singling Froome out. There are plenty just like him at the top of the GT ladder.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Well, I've been following racing and cycling since the mid 70's, watching the tour in Belgium since I was a little kid. I grew up with relatively normal racing in front of me, and watched it change dramatically. I have a fairly sound grasp on what's normal, and a sound grasp of math which backs it up. At the top right now? Mostly not normal.

Go ahead and lap up the drivel from Froome. Your "belief" that I'm in error is immaterial to the facts.

Just for fun, I would like someone to explain to me exactly how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in. How exactly is he able to [paraphrase]match the performances of former dopers [/paraphrase] as his coach claims. What has he done to increase his performance some 15% over the era when people did not have access to oxygen vector doping?

I'm talking serious changes in human performance. There is bike weight (now stabilized), road surface and some better training and specialization. I'll give you a total of 5% increase for the sum of all that.

Someone give me the source of double all that to explain what we're seeing. Someone serious. Someone who actually believes this is explainable and has the facts to back it up or at least a plausible explanation for a ~10% performance increase which is totally to this point unexplained. Thanks. Like I said, I'm patient. I've been waiting for 20+ years.

Exactly.

I grew up in cycling, and have watched racing since the 70s as well. As you, I feel I have a firm grasp on what's 'normal' based on historical precedent.

Nothing the top GT guys are doing is normal. How anyone could argue contrary to that is beyond me. There is absolutely no evidence to prove they're clean, but plenty of precedent to point to 'not normal'...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Paging Krebs Cycle...

 

[doperhopper]

Well, I've been following racing and cycling since the mid 70's, watching the tour in Belgium since I was a little kid. I grew up with relatively normal racing in front of me, and watched it change dramatically. I have a fairly sound grasp on what's normal, and a sound grasp of math which backs it up. At the top right now? Mostly not normal.

Go ahead and lap up the drivel from Froome. Your "belief" that I'm in error is immaterial to the facts.

Just for fun, I would like someone to explain to me exactly how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in. How exactly is he able to [paraphrase]match the performances of former dopers [/paraphrase] as his coach claims. What has he done to increase his performance some 15% over the era when people did not have access to oxygen vector doping?

I'm talking serious changes in human performance. There is bike weight (now stabilized), road surface and some better training and specialization. I'll give you a total of 5% increase for the sum of all that.

Someone give me the source of double all that to explain what we're seeing. Someone serious. Someone who actually believes this is explainable and has the facts to back it up or at least a plausible explanation for a ~10% performance increase which is totally to this point unexplained. Thanks. Like I said, I'm patient. I've been waiting for 20+ years.

genetic doping + extreme weight loss

(officialy codenamed as "badzilla unloaded" + "marginal gains")

 

[Clausfarre]

I'm talking serious changes in human performance. There is bike weight (now stabilized), road surface and some better training and specialization. I'll give you a total of 5% increase for the sum of all that.

Someone give me the source of double all that to explain what we're seeing. Someone serious. Someone who actually believes this is explainable and has the facts to back it up or at least a plausible explanation for a ~10% performance increase which is totally to this point unexplained. Thanks. Like I said, I'm patient. I've been waiting for 20+ years.

Well they could test a competitive rider doing a climb on top of the line 70s equipment versus current equipment. Sure, there will likely be a measurable difference but I would be doubtful and surprised if a nice bike is what makes Froome & co. get their results. Any and all previous cynicism have thus far been proven justified so I find modern clean cycling accelerations hard to swallow.

 

[42x16ss]

You must live in a different world to my friends in Perth. Why is Bruyneel going to change his mantra?

To try and get off with some kind of ban, formal or otherwise that isn't indefinite. He may well have lost his livelihood.

What does he know? They doped, Verbruggen gave them a green card but time has moved on.

He may be able to shed light if McQuaid did the same thing and if anyone else got one too.

If Armstrong is to be believed they were conservative so why wouldn't Bruyneel have become ultra-conservative after 2006.

Armstrong thought he was conservative because he tried to believe he was only levelling the playing field. As a rider, Bruyneel was anything but conservative re: doping (whence "The Hog") so why wouldn't he continue as a DS?

Doping would have become the riders responsibility but he is never going to say that!!

Even if it gets him back behind the wheel of a team car?

 

[timmers]

To try and get off with some kind of ban, formal or otherwise that isn't indefinite. He may well have lost his livelihood.



He may be able to shed light if McQuaid did the same thing and if anyone else got one too.



Armstrong thought he was conservative because he tried to believe he was only levelling the playing field. As a rider, Bruyneel was anything but conservative re: doping (whence "The Hog") so why wouldn't he continue as a DS?



Even if it gets him back behind the wheel of a team car?

Have you only started watching Pro cycling recently? Bruyneel has not driven a car for years! He managed the team and as he lives in London now I suspect he has done very well financially! Why will he rock the boat?

 

[timmers]

Well, I've been following racing and cycling since the mid 70's, watching the tour in Belgium since I was a little kid. I grew up with relatively normal racing in front of me, and watched it change dramatically. I have a fairly sound grasp on what's normal, and a sound grasp of math which backs it up. At the top right now? Mostly not normal.

Go ahead and lap up the drivel from Froome. Your "belief" that I'm in error is immaterial to the facts.

Just for fun, I would like someone to explain to me exactly how Froome is putting in the performances he's putting in. How exactly is he able to [paraphrase]match the performances of former dopers [/paraphrase] as his coach claims. What has he done to increase his performance some 15% over the era when people did not have access to oxygen vector doping?

I'm talking serious changes in human performance. There is bike weight (now stabilized), road surface and some better training and specialization. I'll give you a total of 5% increase for the sum of all that.

Someone give me the source of double all that to explain what we're seeing. Someone serious. Someone who actually believes this is explainable and has the facts to back it up or at least a plausible explanation for a ~10% performance increase which is totally to this point unexplained. Thanks. Like I said, I'm patient. I've been waiting for 20+ years.

Finally some one is stating their doubts in clear terms.

Well no one is unbeatable! Every human performance has been bettered over time.

I am a glass half full guy as regards performances. Do you race? I know that if I lose weight I ride climbs faster and I know that other riders are faster than me. Are they on dope? No they have better physical and mental attributes.

How do you know what is possible? How do you know a 10% performance increase is not possible through balanced training and better mental skills?

I note you live in the USA but have you seen European pro riders in the flesh recently? They are scary thin and I would suggest small. Phil Liggett calling Jan Ulrich big has distorted peoples view on the size of riders in my view.

This is not to say that I don't think Brailford has managed Sky comments poorly plus I think Rob Hayles 50% suspension was very dodgy.

But watching someone on TV is not evidence of doping!