Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Benotti69]

Froome told Kimmage that he barely saw Kerrison, but Kerrison is a neighbour who also lives in Monaco!

 

[Energy Starr]

Or he actually knows he never doped, but I would not expect that unpopular opinion to make any headway here.

Ummm...he already admitted to doping in the past when he wasn't any good. So I'm sure now that he's the bst he no longer dopes...uh huh.

 

[sniper]

Froome told Kimmage that he barely saw Kerrison, but Kerrison is a neighbour who also lives in Monaco!

it seems clear froome is lying here, but i'm curious as to why...
while i can see why froome would hide his dealings with, say, leinders, why would he downplay his collaboration with kerrison? kerrison's reputation is not really tainted, is it?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Froome told Kimmage that he barely saw Kerrison, but Kerrison is a neighbour who also lives in Monaco!

That was before 2013 right?

 

[sniper]

That was before 2013 right?

according to michelle, who jumped in after froome affirmed he never worked with kerrison.
(admittedly the time reference of that affirmation was unclear, since it came up in the context of the 2011 metamorphosis)

 

[RownhamHill]

according to michelle, who jumped in after froome affirmed he never worked with kerrison.
(admittedly the time reference of that affirmation was unclear, since it came up in the context of the 2011 metamorphosis)

PK: I’m interested that you didn’t mention (Tim) Kerrison’s name when I suggested the improvement might have come from Leinders. You mentioned Julich?

(Note: Kerrison, the Head of Athlete Performance, is generally credited as the ‘Genie’ at Team Sky.)

CF: Personally, I never worked with Tim.

PK: You never worked with him?

CF: No.

MC: Not until this year.

CF: Not until Bobby left.

Didn't Bobby Julich leave in the 12/13 off season as part of the ZTP? Which pretty firmly puts the timing as 2011-2012 doesn't it?

 

[sniper]

PK: I’m interested that you didn’t mention (Tim) Kerrison’s name when I suggested the improvement might have come from Leinders. You mentioned Julich?

(Note: Kerrison, the Head of Athlete Performance, is generally credited as the ‘Genie’ at Team Sky.)

CF: Personally, I never worked with Tim.

PK: You never worked with him?

CF: No.

MC: Not until this year.

CF: Not until Bobby left.

Didn't Bobby Julich leave in the 12/13 off season as part of the ZTP? Which pretty firmly puts the timing as 2011-2012 doesn't it?

the interesting bit is this:

CF: Personally, I never worked with Tim.
PK: You never worked with him?
CF: No.

for some reason he seems to be trying to spin that he never worked with kerrison, period.
then MC comes in to fill in some blanks.

 

[red_flanders]

here is the climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

I have to watch the whole thing again..if i have the time. For me it has always been Sestriere

Watch who he drops, who he passes and theses with which he does it. Don't know when I've seen the playing field less even.

 

[ShiftingBalance]

the interesting bit is this:

CF: Personally, I never worked with Tim.
PK: You never worked with him?
CF: No.

for some reason he seems to be trying to spin that he never worked with kerrison, period.
then MC comes in to fill in some blanks.

errrr... 'spin'.... pots and kettles spring to mind.

 

[RownhamHill]

the interesting bit is this:

CF: Personally, I never worked with Tim.
PK: You never worked with him?
CF: No.

for some reason he seems to be trying to spin that he never worked with kerrison, period.
then MC comes in to fill in some blanks.

Maybe that's right.

Or maybe he's answering the question in the context it's asked - initially Kimmage observes the relationship between Leinders joining Sky and Froome improving in 2011, and Froome points out it's also the time that Julich started, and that's more likely to be significant. The Kimmage comes back to the point and says you didn't mention Kerrison - in the context of his transformation in 2011 - and he's saying 'I never worked with Tim [in 2011]'.

I don't know which is the right one, but both sound entirely plausible interpretations of those words to me.

 

[sniper]

Or maybe he's answering the question in the context it's asked - initially Kimmage observes the relationship between Leinders joining Sky and Froome improving in 2011, and Froome points out it's also the time that Julich started, and that's more likely to be significant. The Kimmage comes back to the point and says you didn't mention Kerrison - in the context of his transformation in 2011 - and he's saying 'I never worked with Tim [in 2011]'.

not sure.
i don't want to split hairs here, but in standard english, if that'd been the case, i'd have expected him to say "i had never worked with Tim [up to that point]".
but that's definitely splitting hairs, and i agree the statement is sort of ambiguous.

but then kimmage asks again and he again flat out denies it, rather than saying something like "well, not until 20XX".
for some reason MC needs to fill in that info, whereas Kimmage's question was quite clearly aimed to uncover any sort of dealings froome has had with kerrison.

anyway, i'm splitting hairs here

 

[keeponrollin]

not sure.
i don't want to split hairs here, but in standard english, if that'd been the case, i'd have expected him to say "i had never worked with Tim [up to that point]".
but that's definitely splitting hairs, and i agree the statement is sort of ambiguous.

but then kimmage asks again and he again flat out denies it, rather than saying something like "well, not until 20XX".
for some reason MC needs to fill in that info, whereas Kimmage's question was quite clearly aimed to uncover any sort of dealings froome has had with kerrison.

anyway, i'm splitting hairs here

Its weird though that he has no problem with saying he worked with Julich, a self-admitted doper, but not with Kerrison ?

 

[logical cranium]

That's my view as well. He was strong but Armstrong's Hautecam wasn't that awesome. I guess having Riis's effort from 1996...snippit such

OK Mr. Hog and Mr Flanders. I want to apologize for my bad english earlier I had wine but now I have nap. Lets get off of derail of thread with VAM of Lance and get back to this interview. Ok.

Here is what I think. The interesting part is when Michele Coond interrupt and run the interview. This remind me of the part of the Feris Bueller movie when Feris say when his friend have a first girl she would run him or something like that. Look at Froom and look at Michele. Froom probably just have playboy mag before her. Any doubt who runs that whole relationship? When Froom go to the bathroom at night he put his foot in the toilet and pee on his leg so it makes no noise to splach in the toilet to wake her up I bet.

So other than that this interview is believable. First he make simple mistake about timeline of Lance and Patani. So what? I make mistake about VAM when I look at imposter youtube video.

His belief that sitting down is more arrodynamic than standing up? Who can argue that? Why this is being debated? This is common knowledge so there is nothign there. If he can sit down and then pedal like nuclear eagbeater then he has high VAM. He remind me FLoyd Marweather with punching bag.

Then there is balzilla. This disease rob energy and such. This is like training at altitude with tent. So, when he gets cured it is like superman. He body is trained at less energy then he is cured it is like getting a double shot of nitroous oxide in his carburater. So his meteor rise to the top of the peloton is very perdictable. So couple the arrow position of sitting down with high cadence like Lance, with training with deficient blood do to ballzilla then cure then this is predictable. Chris Froom is the best.

So this thread goes on for many pages and this is stupid. End thread.

 

[The Hitch]

 

[red_flanders]

Maybe that's right.

Or maybe he's answering the question in the context it's asked - initially Kimmage observes the relationship between Leinders joining Sky and Froome improving in 2011, and Froome points out it's also the time that Julich started, and that's more likely to be significant. The Kimmage comes back to the point and says you didn't mention Kerrison - in the context of his transformation in 2011 - and he's saying 'I never worked with Tim [in 2011]'.

I don't know which is the right one, but both sound entirely plausible interpretations of those words to me.

Yeah maybe. "Never" is a very particular word. Could be a semantic aside, could as easily been 2 people not getting their stories straight. As happened several times in other parts of the interview.

 

[RownhamHill]

not sure.
i don't want to split hairs here, but in standard english, if that'd been the case, i'd have expected him to say "i had never worked with Tim [up to that point]".
but that's definitely splitting hairs, and i agree the statement is sort of ambiguous.

but then kimmage asks again and he again flat out denies it, rather than saying something like "well, not until 20XX".
for some reason MC needs to fill in that info, whereas Kimmage's question was quite clearly aimed to uncover any sort of dealings froome has had with kerrison.

anyway, i'm splitting hairs here

Yeah, as I say I have no idea exactly what Froome was trying to spin in that exchange, and this is splitting hairs, so I'm not picking a fight here, but I think it's an interesting topic.

But I think you've got to really bear in mind that this is a transcript of a verbal conversation (and indeed is a couple of hours into that conversation), so I don't think you can really apply the idea of standard (written) English, as people don't get a chance to go back and correct their grammar as they speak.

This is interesting to me, as I've done quite a lot of verbal interviews with people, and then done the transcription back for publication, and it's amazing how sometimes you can have a conversation with someone who you think is fantastically eloquent, and then when you type it up, you find the raw transcript just doesn't really make sense grammatically - thoughts start, then meander, then return to the original clause, and you find yourself with paragraph long 'sentences' that are basically unreadable. Often you find you have to listen back to the tape again as you edit the transcript to make sure you're getting the meaning clear.

But yeah, I don't think saying 'I never worked with Tim', in the context of that question is unreasonable, or even notable.

 

[RownhamHill]

Its weird though that he has no problem with saying he worked with Julich, a self-admitted doper, but not with Kerrison ?

It's not that weird, if indeed he did work with Julich?

 

[thehog]

Yeah maybe. "Never" is a very particular word. Could be a semantic aside, could as easily been 2 people not getting their stories straight. As happened several times in other parts of the interview.

The question for me is why? Why attempt to separate Kerrison?

The interview had this overall tone that Sky don't really know what they are doing. And all of the advancements have been because of The Dawg natural instinct to do things differently, Michele's diet program and Bobby Julich along with the Chunge x 2.

The references to the road bike set up, lack of interest in finding Badzhilla, dismissal of the Kerrison program, not really knowing Leinders, Brailsford's ineptness, giving him the wrong roles in the team etc. you get the feeling there's not a lot of "Team Sky" about the Dawg. He's a one man show with a lady and a bit of Bobby Julich.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe all those times Armstrong said he never doped he actually meant he hadn't doped at a particular time.

So he was never lying.
By which I mean he wasn't lying when he said that not that he "never" lied.

 

[RownhamHill]

Yeah maybe. "Never" is a very particular word. Could be a semantic aside, could as easily been 2 people not getting their stories straight. As happened several times in other parts of the interview.

Every word is particular to itself, no?

Very clearly it is two people not getting their stories straight - note the fact that Froome immediately corrects Counde when she says he didn't work with Kerrison until 'this year' - he corrects her to say until Julich left (which is the year before).

But why would they set out to lie about that?

 

[RownhamHill]

Maybe all those times Armstrong said he never doped he actually meant he hadn't doped at a particular time.

So he was never lying.
By which I mean he wasn't lying when he said that not that he "never" lied.

Are you going anywhere with this, or is this just a pathetic attempt at childish trolling?

 

[Mishrak]

I'll bite.

His belief that sitting down is more arrodynamic than standing up? Who can argue that? Why this is being debated? This is common knowledge so there is nothign there. If he can sit down and then pedal like nuclear eagbeater then he has high VAM. He remind me FLoyd Marweather with punching bag.

The issue isn't aerodynamics. The issue is whether or not what we're seeing makes sense. The fact is we've never seen someone accelerate on a mountain, at that pace, while remaining seated. It just makes no sense at all. You get more accelerating power when you stand up. What the hell would have happened if he'd stood up there? Would he have caused an earthquake?

Then there is balzilla. This disease rob energy and such. This is like training at altitude with tent. So, when he gets cured it is like superman. He body is trained at less energy then he is cured it is like getting a double shot of nitroous oxide in his carburater.

On the surface this makes sense. However, the depth to which Froome had that disease is unknown (even by his own admission) and even were he to have it as bad as it could get, it's very arguable that it would create such an affect. Calling BS on this. It doesn't fit.

So his meteor rise to the top of the peloton is very perdictable. So couple the arrow position of sitting down with high cadence like Lance, with training with deficient blood do to ballzilla then cure then this is predictable. Chris Froom is the best.

Because it was Lance's high cadence that let him win[citation needed] 7 Tours de France, not a team doped to the gills.

 

[Granville57]

I want to apologize for my bad english earlier I had wine but now I have nap.

You might want to lay back down.

 

[logical cranium]

OK Mishrak. First before I reply can you please tell me what your name mean?

First of all, aerodynmics I think I spell that right is real at any speed. Wind resistance go up by square per increase in speed. Any advantage due to aerodynamics is gain so do you see timetrial riders standing up? Of course not. Froom go up the mountain so fast wind resistance is a big factor. This is not like in the old days where slow guys like Induran and Chiapucci have less wind effect due to slow wind resistant since they didn't train at a young age with a disease their whole life. This is like dragging Hincapie up the hill with a bungie cord for years then the cord snap. Its like getting shot out of cannon when balzilla is cured and then wind resistance increase. HOw can you argue that training at less capacity then getting full capacity has no effect? Like I wrote this is like altitude tent with air sucked out of it. You must sit down to gain the full effect because speed for power decrease by square of the air speed so fast guys have to sit down. Why this is just learned now is the question.

Lance learned his high cadence form Induran in the ride of the roses in Austin. He also talked to Merckx who still has his back. Take it up with them if you have problem with high spin rate to win tour. The scoreboard is what it is but fortunately for the competition Lance didnt sit down the whole time when unleashing attack or had Michele Coond as his spokesperson.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

O

So his meteor rise to the top of the peloton is very perdictable. So couple the arrow position of sitting down with high cadence like Lance, with training with deficient blood do to ballzilla then cure then this is predictable. Chris Froom is the best.

So this thread goes on for many pages and this is stupid. End thread.