• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

Page 111 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
proffate said:
I think Walsh is getting laughed at here not for saying "Froome is clean" so much as "Froome is clean because of reason X", where X is clearly not a sound line of reasoning.
that, and what also baffles is his bickering at others, mainly contador.
that's just amazing, considering the likelyhood that sky are doping.

walsh c/should have written a book on sky, stating beforehand that he's not interested in the doping angle. would've been fair enough and we then wouldn't be in here laughing at him.
but that wasn't going to happen, as Sky of course hired him to do just that: reduce doping suspicions.
 
Grupetto1 said:
Just out of interest how do you know? And what were their results?
To be more precise, they both tested their VO2 max just after signing for Sky, but I don't know if Sky demanded them to do so or if they did it independently. It's pretty common that teams do VO2 max tests of all new riders in the start, so I assume it was the first.

If I remember correctly, Nordhaug was at 90 (which took many by surprise, given that Sky signed him on a minimum wage) and EBH around 88.

It would be very strange for a team focused on marginal gains not to measure VO2 max. Sure, it doesn't explain everything, but it's still a significant variable. Nordhaug at the time didn't really have amazing results, but by testing his VO2 max they would have learned that he had a higher potential than initially expected.
 
Dec 14, 2012
99
0
0
Visit site
MartinGT said:
I would love to see a doctor (and not one on the Sky Pay role) explain the treatment of Badzilla.

From what I have read its pretty simple unless I am missing something.

The Dawg's VO2 must have been checked, Sly aint that amateurish. They just dont want to be transparent.

That's why I was asking earlier about which species of Schistosomiasis he has.

The treatment is the same. A single day of Praziquantel in divided doses. [1]

Side effects are usually mild and nothing like Froome described. Didn't they once say it kills your own cells etc. Total horsesh!t. In only targets adult worms causing a build up of calcuim ions in the cytosol leading to paralysis of the adult worm and eventually death. The only adverse effects are related to the worms dying and may include abdominal pain, diarrhoea etc.

Chemotherapy hasn't been used in ages as it's less effective than praziquantel, even for severe infections, and anybody who uses it needs to go back to med school.

The only adjunctive treatment used is glucocorticcoids for Katayama fever and neurological complications.

Efficacy — In endemic areas, most studies have suggested praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, and reduces the intensity of infection by more than 90 percent, even among those who are not cured [2]. Retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent [3]. So to not be cured after retreatment is attempted is very rare.

S. Hematobuim has shown treatment resistance. [4] Which is why I asked what species did he have. The problem with this though is that Hematobuim parasites are located mainly in the bladder wall and symptoms occur very early, with burning urine etc. Any doc would pick it up very quickly. Hematobuim also doesn't cause anemia.

The anemia caused by Schistosomiasis is mainly due to secondary iron deficiency caused by intestinal complications d.t. S. mansoni, S. japonicum, S. intercalatum, S. mekongi.

The fact is that in a first world country this disease is treated easy and you would expect to present early in the disease course. The treatment is simple and fast with minimal side effects. The only time you would expect treatment to fail is when there is a very high disease burden with a prolonged period before treatment, in someone who doesn't have access to treatment.

I think we should find out exactly which species he had and from there it would be easiest to debunk it. I believe he had it. I don't believe it altered his hematology. I don't believe the treatment gave him huge side effects and I also don't believe it's curing is what caused his huge performance gains.


(1) Drugs for Parasitic Infections. Medical Lett Drugs Ther; August 2004
(2) Shekhar KC. Schistosomiasis drug therapy and treatment considerations. Drugs 1991; 42:379
(3) Ismail MM, Attia MM, el-Badawy AA, et al. Treatment of schistosomiasis with praziquantel among school children. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 1994; 24:487
(4) Silva IM, Thiengo R, Conceição MJ, et al. Therapeutic failure of praziquantel in the treatment of Schistosoma haematobium infection in Brazilians returning from Africa. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2005; 100:445.
 
martinvickers said:
Wow, calling out your guy really p***ed you off, didn' it! ;)

I entirely accept the book has its share of mistakes and errors, including the specific reason why Contador was banned (but let's not forget, he was caught and banned), and I've set out my lukewarm views on the book a a whole, but "full of lies"? I think your slip is showing...

It's full of crap.

A book on Contador written by me would be more objective and correct
 
The Hitch said:
Absolutely fantastic summary MI. Brilliantly written and argued analysis that totally smashes to pieces the -buh buh but they train harder, argument.

The oddity if Walsh's statement was that the beer drinker was Ryder.

You know the clean guy who won the 2012 Giro.

Maybe someone can ask JV if Ryder has a beer on the 2012 Giro? :rolleyes:

Miller suntanning himself by the pool on the rest day. Apparently relaxation is not a good idea?

Seeing JV and Miller give Sky the green light not too sure either would be happy with the character assassinations from Walsh.
 
Oct 21, 2012
1,106
0
0
twitter.com
From the Book of Walsh thread:

the sceptic said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ns-challenge-to-Tour-de-France-ambitions.html

Despite being the Olympic bronze medallist in the discipline and runner-up to Wiggins in both long time-trials in this year’s Tour, Froome has never tested his position and bike in a wind tunnel. In time-trial terms, he has been operating in the Stone Age, with elbows out as if riding a scooter.

There is absolutely no way that's true.
 
Aug 8, 2013
262
0
0
Visit site
maltiv said:
Well, my guess is that Froome's VO2 max test from 2010 is quite low, much lower than it should be for a GT rider. So they wouldn't want to publish that.

my thought too...

it may conflict with grappes conclusion and confirm doping as the explanation
 
sideshadow said:
That's why I was asking earlier about which species of Schistosomiasis he has.

The treatment is the same. A single day of Praziquantel in divided doses. [1]

Side effects are usually mild and nothing like Froome described. Didn't they once say it kills your own cells etc. Total horsesh!t. In only targets adult worms causing a build up of calcuim ions in the cytosol leading to paralysis of the adult worm and eventually death. The only adverse effects are related to the worms dying and may include abdominal pain, diarrhoea etc.

Chemotherapy hasn't been used in ages as it's less effective than praziquantel, even for severe infections, and anybody who uses it needs to go back to med school.

The only adjunctive treatment used is glucocorticcoids for Katayama fever and neurological complications.

Efficacy — In endemic areas, most studies have suggested praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, and reduces the intensity of infection by more than 90 percent, even among those who are not cured [2]. Retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent [3]. So to not be cured after retreatment is attempted is very rare.

S. Hematobuim has shown treatment resistance. [4] Which is why I asked what species did he have. The problem with this though is that Hematobuim parasites are located mainly in the bladder wall and symptoms occur very early, with burning urine etc. Any doc would pick it up very quickly. Hematobuim also doesn't cause anemia.

The anemia caused by Schistosomiasis is mainly due to secondary iron deficiency caused by intestinal complications d.t. S. mansoni, S. japonicum, S. intercalatum, S. mekongi.

The fact is that in a first world country this disease is treated easy and you would expect to present early in the disease course. The treatment is simple and fast with minimal side effects. The only time you would expect treatment to fail is when there is a very high disease burden with a prolonged period before treatment, in someone who doesn't have access to treatment.

I think we should find out exactly which species he had and from there it would be easiest to debunk it. I believe he had it. I don't believe it altered his hematology. I don't believe the treatment gave him huge side effects and I also don't believe it's curing is what caused his huge performance gains.


(1) Drugs for Parasitic Infections. Medical Lett Drugs Ther; August 2004
(2) Shekhar KC. Schistosomiasis drug therapy and treatment considerations. Drugs 1991; 42:379
(3) Ismail MM, Attia MM, el-Badawy AA, et al. Treatment of schistosomiasis with praziquantel among school children. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 1994; 24:487
(4) Silva IM, Thiengo R, Conceição MJ, et al. Therapeutic failure of praziquantel in the treatment of Schistosoma haematobium infection in Brazilians returning from Africa. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2005; 100:445.



Good post and with footnotes!

There is a very good thread in the clinic on this very topic.

Walsh last night said it was an RBC eater. And that European doctors don't know how to diagnose it correctly.
 
sideshadow said:
That's why I was asking earlier about which species of Schistosomiasis he has.

The treatment is the same. A single day of Praziquantel in divided doses. [1]

Side effects are usually mild and nothing like Froome described. Didn't they once say it kills your own cells etc. Total horsesh!t. In only targets adult worms causing a build up of calcuim ions in the cytosol leading to paralysis of the adult worm and eventually death. The only adverse effects are related to the worms dying and may include abdominal pain, diarrhoea etc.

Chemotherapy hasn't been used in ages as it's less effective than praziquantel, even for severe infections, and anybody who uses it needs to go back to med school.

The only adjunctive treatment used is glucocorticcoids for Katayama fever and neurological complications.

Efficacy — In endemic areas, most studies have suggested praziquantel cures more than 85 percent of individuals, and reduces the intensity of infection by more than 90 percent, even among those who are not cured [2]. Retreatment of patients with residual infections results in cure in more than 80 percent [3]. So to not be cured after retreatment is attempted is very rare.

S. Hematobuim has shown treatment resistance. [4] Which is why I asked what species did he have. The problem with this though is that Hematobuim parasites are located mainly in the bladder wall and symptoms occur very early, with burning urine etc. Any doc would pick it up very quickly. Hematobuim also doesn't cause anemia.

The anemia caused by Schistosomiasis is mainly due to secondary iron deficiency caused by intestinal complications d.t. S. mansoni, S. japonicum, S. intercalatum, S. mekongi.

The fact is that in a first world country this disease is treated easy and you would expect to present early in the disease course. The treatment is simple and fast with minimal side effects. The only time you would expect treatment to fail is when there is a very high disease burden with a prolonged period before treatment, in someone who doesn't have access to treatment.

I think we should find out exactly which species he had and from there it would be easiest to debunk it. I believe he had it. I don't believe it altered his hematology. I don't believe the treatment gave him huge side effects and I also don't believe it's curing is what caused his huge performance gains.


(1) Drugs for Parasitic Infections. Medical Lett Drugs Ther; August 2004
(2) Shekhar KC. Schistosomiasis drug therapy and treatment considerations. Drugs 1991; 42:379
(3) Ismail MM, Attia MM, el-Badawy AA, et al. Treatment of schistosomiasis with praziquantel among school children. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 1994; 24:487
(4) Silva IM, Thiengo R, Conceição MJ, et al. Therapeutic failure of praziquantel in the treatment of Schistosoma haematobium infection in Brazilians returning from Africa. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2005; 100:445.

Froome's Bilharzia was discussed at more length in this thread http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21198 and also on a number of occasions in the Froome thread.

Its good to have another person making these observations.
 
Alphabet said:
From the Book of Walsh thread:



There is absolutely no way that's true.

What should immediately strike anyone with 2 braincells and very worryingly as far as Walsh's mental health is concerned, seems to fly above his head, is that if Sky Pro Cycling is the most sciency science organization that ever existed, as he spends the rest of the book claiming and explaining, how do they not put Froome in a windtunnel. That is the most obvious marginal gain there is.

You are not team marginal gains if you don't use a windutunnel. Ffs walsh
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
JimmyFingers said:
Ok I'm coming over on this one: find the fact Walsh is co-authoring Froome's autobiography most odd.

Most odd Jimmy. I heard the working title is "Inside Chris Froome".

I for one am looking forward to see if its possible to top the level of delusion from this one. It will be hard, but I have faith Walsh can do it.

After that, he might have to write a book to explain how Porte won the giro.
 
Nov 27, 2013
22
0
0
Visit site
be more realistic

If sky and froome are doping, one would think the rest of the peleton is also doping... this is simply a reasonable assumption. Contador, Valverde and most of moovistar are all ex dopers, if there a big loophole in the testing that allows significant gains whoever is winning will be doping as will all the other contenders. So why take the view that Froome is not a talented rider he won by 5 minutes... sure he may be doped but its outragous to think one person in the whole peleton is.
When theres doping I feel the uci and anti doping tests should be blamed, proffesional atheletes go into win at all costs and will go on the limit whatever it is. Untill that limit is not doping then top atheletes in physically determined sports will be doped, the two will be synominous with each other.
Yes froome may have doped but too say he has no talent is laughable his achievement at the tour was remarkable with or without drugs.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
nickhalliwell said:
If sky and froome are doping, one would think the rest of the peleton is also doping... this is simply a reasonable assumption. Contador, Valverde and most of moovistar are all ex dopers, if there a big loophole in the testing that allows significant gains whoever is winning will be doping as will all the other contenders. So why take the view that Froome is not a talented rider he won by 5 minutes... sure he may be doped but its outragous to think one person in the whole peleton is.
When theres doping I feel the uci and anti doping tests should be blamed, proffesional atheletes go into win at all costs and will go on the limit whatever it is. Untill that limit is not doping then top atheletes in physically determined sports will be doped, the two will be synominous with each other.
Yes froome may have doped but too say he has no talent is laughable his achievement at the tour was remarkable with or without drugs.

Most who think Froome is doping also believe he beat others who are also doping. The culture in cycling is to dope.

Read the rest of the clinic.
 
Nov 27, 2013
22
0
0
Visit site
I get that most think they are all doping... which i feel they must be as for horner to win he must have doped which shows there are massive loopholes in the biological passport.
However a lot of the arguments on here are that froome is not a talented cyclist in an attempt to prove he is doping.
He clearly is a talented cyclist his earlier results may not have been great but to beat everyone by 5 mins shows he must of had the talent and either wasnt training right b4/ doping. However some of you seem to be suggesting froomes an average cyclist whose great because hes doping... if we think froome is doping then its likely the rest are so he must be talented to be beating guys like contador who one would assume is on a similair programme to froome.
Finally im aware lance doped better than the majority of his comp due to monetary advantages and the best doctors so may have achieved greater results than his talent.... however sky as a team this year were not all super strong and although they have a big budget if they are doping one would assume the whole teams on a strong programme and they didnt all perform just froome. These things to me make an argument that froomes not very talented so must be doping a stupid argument.... he may be doping but hes clearly one hell of a cyclist.
 
nickhalliwell said:
If sky and froome are doping, one would think the rest of the peleton is also doping... this is simply a reasonable assumption. Contador, Valverde and most of moovistar are all ex dopers, if there a big loophole in the testing that allows significant gains whoever is winning will be doping as will all the other contenders. So why take the view that Froome is not a talented rider he won by 5 minutes... sure he may be doped but its outragous to think one person in the whole peleton is.
When theres doping I feel the uci and anti doping tests should be blamed, proffesional atheletes go into win at all costs and will go on the limit whatever it is. Untill that limit is not doping then top atheletes in physically determined sports will be doped, the two will be synominous with each other.
Yes froome may have doped but too say he has no talent is laughable his achievement at the tour was remarkable with or without drugs.
I can see why you would think this way but it's not correct. The difference between how people react to doping can be just as big as the differences in talent. So it's perfectly possible for a guy who's not talented naturally to dominate in a doped up environment, simply due to his superior responsiveness to performance enhancing substances.

In fact, there could be a negative correlation between talent and responsiveness to drugs, in that having a natural high HGB is great for a clean rider, whilst for a rider who dopes it would mean that he would have to take smaller dozes to not cross the limit (and hence a lower effect of doping). Vaughters once said that Bruyneel told him that, with his high HGB (which, again, should be a good thing) he had no chance of making it as a pro.
 
nickhalliwell said:
I get that most think they are all doping... which i feel they must be as for horner to win he must have doped which shows there are massive loopholes in the biological passport.
However a lot of the arguments on here are that froome is not a talented cyclist in an attempt to prove he is doping.
He clearly is a talented cyclist his earlier results may not have been great but to beat everyone by 5 mins shows he must of had the talent and either wasnt training right b4/ doping. However some of you seem to be suggesting froomes an average cyclist whose great because hes doping... if we think froome is doping then its likely the rest are so he must be talented to be beating guys like contador who one would assume is on a similair programme to froome.
Finally im aware lance doped better than the majority of his comp due to monetary advantages and the best doctors so may have achieved greater results than his talent.... however sky as a team this year were not all super strong and although they have a big budget if they are doping one would assume the whole teams on a strong programme and they didnt all perform just froome. These things to me make an argument that froomes not very talented so must be doping a stupid argument.... he may be doping but hes clearly one hell of a cyclist.
Haha. Thanks for the laugh of the day:)