• 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 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Race Radio said:
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.

Why do these people see Semnoz as suspicious and not AX 3 and Ventoux which were truly out of this world? That makes no sense.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
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.

:cool:

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

Thanks for proving my point. More insults and baiting.

Actually it would have been 2007 when I ran into the UCI development squad in the Alps. They had just done the weekly time trial at Alp d'Huez. It has been a while but I do remember the mechanic talking about one of the riders, not Froome, riding 42 minutes.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
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?

I deleted that post you have quoted with caps, made it like I was speaking in your race radio for a joke - see my other post, and perhaps answer the one question I put to you. By way of having a discussion.

I have a hunch that Froome is an even bigger fraud than Armstrong!
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
sniper said:
+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 hiring of Lienders was stupid and their response to the issue has been pathetic. It can be read many ways but I really can't see any team hiring Leinders to run a modern program. If they have a program today it isn't being done by somebody so obvious as Lienders. The higher likelihood is Froome, and a few other riders, have their own guy
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
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 guess that Brailsford has dealt with this matter in a way more professional matter than Armstrong/Bruyneel.

What do you know about Sky making a presentation to ASO?

ASO dont have clean hands in cycling.

But still disagree with you on Froome. Defo donkey to racehorse. Walsh is playing the role of Judas Escariot.
 
Race Radio said:
The hiring of Lienders was stupid and their response to the issue has been pathetic. It can be read many ways but I really can't see any team hiring Leinders to run a modern program. If they have a program today it isn't being done by somebody so obvious as Lienders. The higher likelihood is Froome, and a few other riders, have their own guy
My take on it is they took Leinders in not to devise or administer the program himself, but to monitor the riders and make sure no one tripped the wire. Hiring him was in my opinion the sign that their 2010 policy had been abandoned, but that doesn't necessarily mean they did things internally with no plausible deniability.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
The Hitch said:
Why do these people see Semnoz as suspicious and not AX 3 and Ventoux which were truly out of this world? That makes no sense.

A few elements. It was longer then AX3, more controlled (No leadouts), No wind on the climb...... but the most important is it came at the end of a 3 week GT.

Here is a decent overview.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

Basically they put out more W/kg on a 15% longer climb in the 3rd week with no leadout or wind.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
<snip for brevity>

I can understand why Walsh is not so eager

Why is Walsh eager to declare Froome and Sky clean? If they aren't ( i dont believe they are clean) he will look totally stupid and there will be accusations of bowing to Murdoch's influence

Race Radio said:
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

How could a guy who started racing his bike at age 14-16 be so clueless? Not buying it.

Garmin wanted to look at Froome, without testing riders Vaughter's dont sign them.

Directors and managers make msitakes all the time. Vini Fantini spring to mind this year.
 
Race Radio said:
Thanks for proving my point. More insults and baiting.

Actually it would have been 2007 when I ran into the UCI development squad in the Alps. They had just done the weekly time trial at Alp d'Huez. It has been a while but I do remember the mechanic talking about one of the riders, not Froome, riding 42 minutes.

What about Froome's secret UCI test that JV has never seen? Apparently it proves Froome as a big engine. But no one has seen it :rolleyes:

I like Taylor Phinney. Good rider. Will go far. Next time you catch up with him. Tell him to stay away from the path that the Dawg took.

Now tell us more about Lance.
 
Race Radio said:
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 might not be bias here, but I would not compare Quintana to Froome. Quintana has always been outstanding and exceptional from day one. In fact he is a climber and is expected to climb with the best. He is also expected to lose time in the TT. On the other hand Froome climbs equal or better than Quintana and TT a lot better than him. That is just plain suspicious for a guy that has not shown any significant results in the past.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
bewildered said:
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.

This is where things fall apart. Froome held on to a Moto once because he had an knee issue and was trying to get through the stage. This is suddenly transformed into being his true ability, not an occasional incident. It is impossible to find one rider who has not had a bad day and got a few "Power bottles"

Froome had a good engine. He could climb and TT a bit. That is why he was able to turn Pro and remain a Pro. Did he show any indication that he could win the Tour?.......no, not much
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
I might not be bias here, but I would not compare Quintana to Froome. Quintana has always been outstanding and exceptional from day one. In fact he is a climber and is expected to climb with the best. He is also expected to lose time in the TT. On the other hand Froome climbs equal or better than Quintana and TT a lot better than him. That is just plain suspicious for a guy that has not shown any significant results in the past.

I agree on Quintana. He has always been a great rider. He also has a great head on his shoulders, very smart, focused bike racer. My point was more on his performance on the Semnoz and Alp d'Huez. Hard to look at 6.2-6.4 w/kg on a 32 minute climb, in day 21 of a GT and not wonder. I try not to think of it because I like the guy
 
Race Radio said:
A few elements. It was longer then AX3, more controlled (No leadouts), No wind on the climb...... but the most important is it came at the end of a 3 week GT.

Here is a decent overview.
http://veloclinic.tumblr.com/post/56107398914/2013-tour-de-france-overall-analysis

Basically they put out more W/kg on a 15% longer climb in the 3rd week with no leadout or wind.
I have Quintana with aproximately 6 watts/kg in Alpe dHuez. That time is very close to 40 minutes. That should be OK for a guy with his VO2 max.

Besides Quintana changed his strategy during the last week of the Tour. He drafted quite a bit during the last week. Especially on the last MTF. He pretty much drafted the whole mountain. Even with no or some small wind it will make some difference in the watts calculation, at least in my program. I would look at Purito and Froome for more explanations.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
I agree on Quintana. He has always been a great rider. He also has a great head on his shoulders, very smart, focused bike racer. My point was more on his performance on the Semnoz and Alp d'Huez. Hard to look at 6.2-6.4 w/kg on a 32 minute climb, in day 21 of a GT and not wonder. I try not to think of it because I like the guy

hearing him talk, he seems nice, definitely, wouldn't hurt a fly.
but not the brightest bulb either, and not anyone who would ask many questions when the doctor lays his hands on him.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Escarabajo said:
I have Quintana with aproximately 6 watts/kg in Alpe dHuez. That time is very close to 40 minutes. That should be OK for a guy with his VO2 max.

Besides Quintana changed his strategy during the last week of the Tour. He drafted quite a bit during the last week. Especially on the last MTF. He pretty much drafted the whole mountain. Even with no or some small wind it will make some difference in the watts calculation, at least in my program. I would look at Purito and Froome for more explanations.

Me too. Froome looked like he was pulling a calculated performance drop rather than an actual drop in performance. Jrod just kept getting better. Quintana on the other hand kept steady....but that in itself is suspect.

But Froome couldn't be doping cause he was sharing a room with Porte, no way would they do that or come up with a plan regarding a gel, no way :)
 
Race Radio said:
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.
Froome had 3 MTF top 10s in races of .1 or above before the 2011 Vuelta. He had managed a few results in the Jayco Herald Sun Tour and the Giro del Capo, but he hadn't actually won any of these mountaintops. Apart from that it was one a year 2009-11 (3rd on Mont Faron in February 2009, 9th to Poffe in a weak field in the 2010 Brixia Tour, 8th in the uphill sprint to Leysin in Romandie 2011), though the Taaramäe on San Luca and 3rd in the '08 Giro dell'Appenino isn't too shabby.

However, on Smith being barely top 100 in the world, Froome's highest CQ tally to that date was 275th, although I acknowledge the talent field is far deeper in cycling due to the much higher number of competitors.

It's also alarming in that it wasn't really a Barloworld to Sky transformation as it was a "my contract's up" transformation, as his results at Barloworld (a team without the best of reputations) clearly outstrip those in his first 18 months at Team Sky. Steve Houanard springs to mind when seeing such transformations.
131313 said:
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.
Kohl finished on the podium of the Dauphiné in 2006 after climbing, if not with the best, then with the next best, on Mont Ventoux and La Toussuire. It's very hard to find somebody whose transformation was as genuinely out of nowhere in terms of results as Froome's was. Even Santi Pérez could be argued in favour of. The nearest in terms of ROAD results is Wiggins, but he has the focusing on the track as justification.
Race Radio said:
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
But he was likely to have been on the same low level domestique salary at Garmin or Lampre (the other ones iirc who were keen to sign him); and with good reason. He had the talent to say he could perhaps make it as a decent top level pro rider, but hadn't shown anything that even remotely satisfactorily explains his subsequent meteoric rise. I would agree his Vuelta is more suspect than his Tour, if only because by the time he was ludicrous at the Tour, ludicrousness was already kind of par for the course for Chris Froome, at that Vuelta, he was a directly unfunny joke, and it was deeply frustrating to deal with people (not yourself) throwing daggers at Juan José Cobo, a man who had plenty of top level results and who had shown he was in form by being 3rd on the main MTF at Burgos, for 'cheating' the clean Chris Froome, a man who had next to no top level results and had shown his form by losing 20+ minutes in the toughest two stages of the Tour de Pologne, despite the fact that Cobo had nothing to do with why Froome lost that race, as the real reason was that Team Sky did not commit to him until it was too late as they saw Wiggins as the real leader.

Which may have seemed silly, but it's worth remembering that at this point Wiggins had won the Dauphiné and finished (then) 4th at the Tour, whereas Froome hadn't got any results even at short stage races, and was a total unknown. Why wouldn't you back the known quality over a total gamble?
Race Radio said:
The hiring of Lienders was stupid and their response to the issue has been pathetic. It can be read many ways but I really can't see any team hiring Leinders to run a modern program. If they have a program today it isn't being done by somebody so obvious as Lienders. The higher likelihood is Froome, and a few other riders, have their own guy
I agree fully on this point, but then the question has to arise, why would you hire Leinders if not to dope (or mask doping, as hrotha then brought up)? After all, his name was in the public domain thanks to the Rasmussen case, and while he may not have been a doping household name à la Conconi, Ferrari or Fuentes at that point, I do go back to something I've said many times before: we forum users are just that; for Dave Brailsford his job is built on staking his reputation out, and that involved being thorough in their anti-doping (remember: attention to detail). Therefore while the Clinic may not have done its research on Leinders, you'd think that pre-emptive research from Team Sky might have pointed out: Geert Leinders is not a guy you hire if you want to look transparent on doping. Then trying to hide that appointment doesn't help you look transparent either, in fact it has the opposite effect. If Leinders is a red herring, and I think that that may be the case, then why is there even a red herring in the first place? "The clean team might be doing something dirty, but not with the dirty guy you'd think!!!"

If Froome is clean, he's clearly a completely inept public relations guy. Because he's a dominant champion, and he comes across as a nice, personable and friendly guy (as opposed to Wiggins, who formerly came across as a likable everyman but with success going to his head has come across as a selfish, arrogant, vindictive individual with a very short fuse)... and yet he isn't especially popular and questions are popping up about him all over the place. Few seem to believe in him. And he couldn't look more like an unrepentant doper if the cycling paparazzi caught him stumbling out of a nightclub with white powder on his face and his arms around Davide Rebellin and Danilo di Luca, before taking bags out of the boot of a car owned by Edita Rumsas.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
...


If Froome is clean, he's clearly a completely inept public relations guy. Because he's a dominant champion, and he comes across as a nice, personable and friendly guy (as opposed to Wiggins, who formerly came across as a likable everyman but with success going to his head has come across as a selfish, arrogant, vindictive individual with a very short fuse)... and yet he isn't especially popular and questions are popping up about him all over the place. Few seem to believe in him. And he couldn't look more like an unrepentant doper if the cycling paparazzi caught him stumbling out of a nightclub with white powder on his face and his arms around Davide Rebellin and Danilo di Luca, before taking bags out of the boot of a car owned by Edita Rumsas.
Now that's funny.
 
Race Radio said:
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.


Being anal here but that is grossly untrue, Riis was almost out of work before Systeme-U picked him up in 89. He was in a contract with Ariostea(92-93) when he started using EPO unless you have info that Riis started using EPO in 89. Riis did not suddenly transform before Ariostea, he improved whilst there and was not at the end of a contract.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Being anal here but that is grossly untrue, Riis was almost out of work before Systeme-U picked him up in 89. He was in a contract with Ariostea(92-93) when he started using EPO unless you have info that Riis started using EPO in 89. Riis did not suddenly transform before Ariostea, he improved whilst there and was not at the end of a contract.

I wound't say grossly untrue.

Riis was riding for Toshiba during a race in 88. Fignon asked for his help to win a race, even though they were on separate teams. Riis rode for him and in return was given a job where he rode for 3 years, largely anonymously. There was zero indication he could ride 6.7 w/kg on the Hautacam with a 64% hct.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
This is where things fall apart. Froome held on to a Moto once because he had an knee issue and was trying to get through the stage. This is suddenly transformed into being his true ability, not an occasional incident. It is impossible to find one rider who has not had a bad day and got a few "Power bottles"

Froome had a good engine. He could climb and TT a bit. That is why he was able to turn Pro and remain a Pro. Did he show any indication that he could win the Tour?.......no, not much

RR, "....no, not much", out of 100 i would say he showed a 0 that he could win a GT.