Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[sniper]

It is not as obvious as you may think. I have talked to a LOT of riders, directors, managers, and scientist about this as I try to figure it out. All of them have questions. For some it is the sudden improvement from Barloworld to Sky, others it is his (And Quintana's) performance on the Semnoz.....most have questions, but none share the level of conviction I see here.

you must also have seen that Froome and Sky took their foot off the pedal after stage 8, Ax3D, which had raised a lot of eyebrows among objective observers.
If Sky/Froome hadn't taken their foot off the pedal in some of the following mountain stages, the time distance to the nr. 2 and rest of the field would would easily have been worse than in Lance's/USPS' most dominant years.

Froome also held back deliberately in the TT, letting Tony win.
Froome and Porte probably were much stronger than we've actually seen.
Porte could have easily beaten Quintana and Contador in the GC. It would have been a nice 1-2 for Sky, if they hadn't slowed down deliberately.

 

[thehog]

While I share your skepticism of Froome's Barloworld to Sky transformation (As do many others) I do not see it as being as extreme as Armstrong's or Smith's. Froome had a few top 10 MTF results while Armstrong would get dropped for minutes in every TT and MTF. Smith was barely in the top 100 in the world before she won 4 medals....while Froome was known as a guy who could climb, but also crashed all the time

Froome was known as a guy who could climb?

Really.

Now he can ride faster than a doped up UCi aided Lance and burn off Contador whilst sitting in the saddle

 

[Race Radio]

you must also have seen that Froome and Sky took their foot off the pedal after stage 8, Ax3D, which had raised a lot of eyebrows among objective observers.
If Sky/Froome hadn't taken their foot off the pedal in some of the following mountain stages, the time distance to the nr. 2 and rest of the field would would easily have been worse than in Lance's/USPS' most dominant years.

Froome also held back deliberately in the TT, letting Tony win.
Froome and Porte probably were much stronger than we've actually seen.

For most that I talk to it was the ride on the Semnoz that raised more questions. 6.2 w/kg in the 3rd week of a hard GT? Pas Normal.

 

[sniper]

For most that I talk to it was the ride on the Semnoz that raised more questions. 6.2 w/kg in the 3rd week of a hard GT? Pas Normal.

true........
but even vaughters was already in "i don't know"-mode after ax3D.
that accelleration was armstrong-esque. Just less nice to watch.

 

[the sceptic]

Froome was known as a guy who could climb?

Really.

Now he can ride faster than a doped up UCi aided Lance and burn off Contador whilst sitting in the saddle

Ever since he came 35th in the commonwealth games ITT it was known that he could climb.

 

[Digger]

While I share your skepticism of Froome's Barloworld to Sky transformation (As do many others) I do not see it as being as extreme as Armstrong's or Smith's. Froome had a few top 10 MTF results while Armstrong would get dropped for minutes in every TT and MTF. Smith was barely in the top 100 in the world before she won 4 medals....while Froome was known as a guy who could climb, but also crashed all the time

If there is a conspiracy then it would have to be with UKAD, not the UCI.....and I see/hear no evidence of that.

I would like you to specify examples of where froome crashed all the time and had good mtf finishes in big races...
He was being let go by sky. Then bang he's sprinting up with cobo in the 2011 vuelta. He had no results high up of low down. Lets not rewrite history here. Lance did come in somewhere around 35th overall. Froome came around 80th overall in the tour of Poland a few weeks before that vuelta. I have spoken to current pros who said it was a 'joke' what he did in that vuelta. So to say lances improvement was greater...even when he won the worlds at 21 is not true.

 

[sniper]

If there is a conspiracy then it would have to be with UKAD, not the UCI.....and I see/hear no evidence of that.

it's not evidence, but Sky delegates visiting ASO headquarters in Paris sounds fishy to me.
Do other teams do that?

 

[pmcg76]

It is not as obvious as you may think. I have talked to a LOT of riders, directors, managers, and scientist about this as I try to figure it out. All of them have questions. For some it is the sudden improvement from Barloworld to Sky, others it is his (And Quintana's) performance on the Semnoz.....most have questions, but none share the level of conviction I see here.

I don't particularly have the level of conviction of other on Froome's doping but as someone who regards themselves as balanced on the subject, Froome's transformation is right up there on the suspicious scale at the top. I put it right up there with Riis, Chiappucci or even higher.

As much as I loathe Armstrong, his transformation was way more logical than Froome, he had a top 20 TT in the 94 Tour age 22, yes the same one where Indurain blitzed him but he could still TT. He also was capable of winning the MTFs at the Tour du Pont, yes not huge mountains or much opposition but more than anything Froome ever showed.

Armstrong was never a 7 time Tour winner without the dope but he still showed more talent than Froome before the transformation.

 

[131313]

I don't particularly have the level of conviction of other on Froome's doping but as someone who regards themselves as balanced on the subject, Froome's transformation is right up there on the suspicious scale at the top. I put it right up there with Riis, Chiappucci or even higher.

As much as I loathe Armstrong, his transformation was way more logical than Froome, he had a top 20 TT in the 94 Tour age 22, yes the same one where Indurain blitzed him but he could still TT. He also was capable of winning the MTFs at the Tour du Pont, yes not huge mountains or much opposition but more than anything Froome ever showed.

Armstrong was never a 7 time Tour winner without the dope but he still showed more talent than Froome before the transformation.

Agree, completely. There's zero comparison between Armstrong and Froome in their early years. None.

A more apt comparison: Bernhard Kohl

Folks seem to be really stretching the bounds of reality to try to believe the unbelievable. I also don't think it's fair to lump Quintana in with Froome. He's always been really good.

 

[biokemguy]

It is not as obvious as you may think. I have talked to a LOT of riders, directors, managers, and scientist about this as I try to figure it out. All of them have questions. For some it is the sudden improvement from Barloworld to Sky, others it is his (And Quintana's) performance on the Semnoz.....most have questions, but none share the level of conviction I see here.

If these riders you talk to use logic as poor as Talansky in this interview then I wouldn't expect much doubt among the peloton. Does he really put his career trajectory in the same ball park as Froome?

 

[Race Radio]

I don't particularly have the level of conviction of other on Froome's doping but as someone who regards themselves as balanced on the subject, Froome's transformation is right up there on the suspicious scale at the top. I put it right up there with Riis, Chiappucci or even higher.

As much as I loathe Armstrong, his transformation was way more logical than Froome, he had a top 20 TT in the 94 Tour age 22, yes the same one where Indurain blitzed him but he could still TT. He also was capable of winning the MTFs at the Tour du Pont, yes not huge mountains or much opposition but more than anything Froome ever showed.

Armstrong was never a 7 time Tour winner without the dope but he still showed more talent than Froome before the transformation.

I would not go as far as Riis.....that was the true donkey to racehorse. My point on lance was the amount of improvement, at least 15% increase in output. I do not see the same with Froome.

I am trying convey what the discussions around the sport are. Yes, there is a lot of skepticism but it is not on the level of 99.....but at the same time his Vuelta turnaround was miraculous. biokemguy makes a good point, most of the time riders are the worst people to talk to.

One thing I don't understand why Walsh has not done an in depth exploration of Kerrison's training methods. I have heard from many people, both inside and outside of the Sky camp, that what he does is revolutionary......but have nothing about what exactly this means. The only thing we hear is "reverse periodization" which is hardly revolutionary.

 

[the sceptic]

So everyone stopped doping in 2011, thus Froome didnt have to increase his power from when he won the jock strap race and came 35th in the commonwealth games ITT

Also, how does Riis not have better results than Froome pre transformation?

 

[Race Radio]

So everyone stopped doping in 2011, thus Froome didnt have to increase his power from when he won the jock strap race and came 35th in the commonwealth games ITT

Also, how does Riis not have better results than Froome pre transformation?

Froome was 5th in the Commonwealth games TT.....which means nothing as the commonwealth games is a bit of a joke for cycling. When he finished 35th how many times did he crash?

A better indication would be his 2nd in the B TT worlds in 2007. Still a bit of a joke but better competition then the Commonwealth games. His rep at the time was a guy with a good engine who crashed a lot.....but this is professional cycling, there are lots of guys with good engines

Riis was out of a job before he discovered EPO.

 

[hrotha]

Riis was out of a job before he discovered EPO.

And Froome didn't have a contract going into the 2011 Vuelta.

 

[horsinabout]

I would not go as far as Riis.....that was the true donkey to racehorse. My point on lance was the amount of improvement, at least 15% increase in output. I do not see the same with Froome.

I am trying convey what the discussions around the sport are. Yes, there is a lot of skepticism but it is not on the level of 99.....but at the same time his Vuelta turnaround was miraculous. biokemguy makes a good point, most of the time riders are the worst people to talk to.

One thing I don't understand why Walsh has not done an in depth exploration of Kerrison's training methods. I have heard from many people, both inside and outside of the Sky camp, that what he does is revolutionary......but have nothing about what exactly this means. The only thing we hear is "reverse periodization" which is hardly revolutionary.

Have you got your ear piece in Race Radio......The arguments from posters have been on to a winner, some excellent rebuttal of your defence of Froome's not so amazing transformation. The clinic is still working well or better than ever here.

No Walsh has not picked up on the contradictions of Kerrison's training of leg speed and what journalists asked about leg speed training when interviewing Froome.

Have you asked around about the - Vorsprung durch Technik ?

 

[Race Radio]

And Froome didn't have a contract going into the 2011 Vuelta.

True, but there were several teams, like Garmin, trying to sign him. It is not like he was a complete unknown quantity. Directors and managers at the time saw him as a guy with a good engine who was completely clueless on a bike.

Regardless, his Vuelta performance is even more questionable then his Tour performance

 

[thehog]

Froome was 5th in the Commonwealth games TT.....which means nothing as the commonwealth games is a bit of a joke for cycling. When he finished 35th how many times did he crash?

A better indication would be his 2nd in the B TT worlds in 2007. Still a bit of a joke but better competition then the Commonwealth games. His rep at the time was a guy with a good engine who crashed a lot.....but this is professional cycling, there are lots of guys with good engines

Riis was out of a job before he discovered EPO.

His rep at the time? Of course you were raving about him back in 09, yes? Froome and his big engine.

Oh please Mr. Race. You do go on.



Do you think he's more talented than Taylor Phoney? hahaha!

 

[thehog]

Big engine? Whats this bloody big engine business?

What the duck is a big engine?

 

[horsinabout]

I would not go as far as Riis.....that was the true donkey to racehorse. My point on lance was the amount of improvement, at least 15% increase in output. I do not see the same with Froome.

I am trying convey what the discussions around the sport are. Yes, there is a lot of skepticism but it is not on the level of 99.....but at the same time his Vuelta turnaround was miraculous. biokemguy makes a good point, most of the time riders are the worst people to talk to.

One thing I don't understand why Walsh has not done an in depth exploration of Kerrison's training methods. I have heard from many people, both inside and outside of the Sky camp, that what he does is revolutionary......but have nothing about what exactly this means. The only thing we hear is "reverse periodization" which is hardly revolutionary.

Have you got your ear piece in Race Radio......The arguments from posters have been on to a winner, some excellent rebuttal of your defence of Froome's not so amazing transformation. The clinic is still working well or better than ever here.

No Walsh has not picked up on the contradictions of Kerrison's training of leg speed and what journalists asked about leg speed training when interviewing Froome.

Have you asked around about the - Vorsprung durch Technik ?

 

[Race Radio]

Have you got your ear piece in Race Radio......EACH AND EVER REBUTTLE AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF FROOME HAS BEEN ON TO A WINNER. QUITE NOW BEFORE YOU COMPLETELY LOOSE THE ARGUMENT.....OVER AND OUT.

I am not here to have an argument, I am here to have a discussion. Is that possible?

If you have read what I have written you would see I have raised questions about Froome. I have also tried to communicate the confusion many in the sport have about Froome. I talk to a lot of people in the sport. The vast majority share my view that there are questions but not enough answers.

Comparing it lance is not valid. Look at 2000. Armstrong had shown a 15% increase in output while dropping weight. His team was caught on film dumping dope and syringes. I had already heard about the hospital room, motoman, the RV, Ferrari, and the team program. Despite all the people I talk to I find nothing on Froome that comes close to this. So we are left with Lienders and some very questionable performances, many that came after Lienders left. I can understand why Walsh is not so eager

It is possible to discuss the topic and not fight isn't it?.....OR DO I HAVE TO RESPOND IN ALL CAPS AND BE ANGRY IN ORDER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

 

[the sceptic]

but Froome didnt have a 15% increase when he went from being a nobody to climbing as fast as Armstrong?

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins is fragile, can't put himself through another couple of years like 2011/12, he'll get sidelined by the team and eventually shafted by Dave B.

r.

Read your own posts made. Wiggins, the person who is now a made guy, an untouchable, because he won the Tour de France is going to admit to doping and throw away everything he has won over the last couple of years. The money, the fame, the better future for his kids, the admiration of fanboys. Throw it all away. Why exactly? You haven't really made that clear.

 

[sniper]

I am not here to have an argument, I am here to have a discussion. Is that possible?

If you have read what I have written you would see I have raised questions about Froome. I have also tried to communicate the confusion many in the sport have about Froome. I talk to a lot of people in the sport. The vast majority share my view that there are questions but not enough answers.

Comparing it lance is not valid. Look at 2000. Armstrong had shown a 15% increase in output while dropping weight. His team was caught on film dumping dope and syringes. I had already heard about the hospital room, motoman, the RV, Ferrari, and the team program. Despite all the people I talk to I find nothing on Froome that comes close to this. So we are left with Lienders and some very questionable performances, many that came after Lienders left. I can understand why Walsh is not so eager

It is possible to discuss the topic and not fight isn't it?.....OR DO I HAVE TO RESPOND IN ALL CAPS AND BE ANGRY IN ORDER TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

+1

but when you say, "all we are left with is Leinders", you are downplaying the importance of that piece of evidence, i.e. the very fact that sky deliberately, knowingly, willingly hired a doctor who everybody inside the game knew was a doping doctor first class.

then to have to listen to Brailsford's bs excuses and changing stories, including some blatant lies (e.g. about the number of days Leinders had worked for sky), that was insulting as much as Lance's and Bruyneel's excuses used to be.

 

[The Hitch]

Wiggins weight loss was dramatic. Froome not as much. Neither rider's transformation was remotely close to the transformation of Smith or even Armstrong.

There are certainly questions to be asked about Froome, and Quintana, but it is not as obvious the freak show that was Michelle Smith

What about Contador. Why is Froome 2013 or Wiggins 2012 not as obvious as Contador 2007?

 

[bewildered]

for me LA's results at a young age were more impressive than Froome's because LA doped a lot earlier than Froome by all accounts. I find it hard to believe that Froome was doping to any significant level when he was zig-zagging, holding onto motorbikes, about to get dropped by Sky.

So, for me, Froome's transformation was even bigger, more immediate and more obvious than LA's but both arose as a result of doping imo. There was nothing gradual about the Vuelta 2011.