Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[spetsa]

Before EPO? Before the face of cycling changed? Interesting...and pretty irrelevant honestly.

1993

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Awesome!!! aaand ignored....

 

[Pentacycle]

I hugely respect you and your cycling enthusiasm, but where does this willingness to adapt any rider's career for some ideal consistent way of improving comes from? Riders never improve the same and will never be. Sometimes talented rider doesn't know his limits and is not mentally stable. Sometimes management doesn't believe in him and bets on others. Sometimes hard work beats any talent. There is a million of circumstances which preordain the final outcome. What universal scheme of consistency can be made up I don't know...

Yes, one is free to support absolute consistency, but in this case one should admit the fact that one'll get 1 or 2 elite riders in a decade to support.

Sadly, the CN forum didn't exist in 2007. But IMO if most of forumities looked into account Schleck's and Contador's Giro's and Tour's cases, it wouldn't have been a shock, it would of been horror of indignation. So to me that is just the situation of what one calls normal. Probably, within a year Froome will win a GT and his success will start being considered such a norma like Contador's, Schleck's, Evans' or anyone else.

In fact, the extent of suspicion hit such a high point in cycling that any change of eras among riders is doomed to collide with disturbance we see here.


Yes, Froome uses doping. Very likely, biharzia played a key role in his becoming as a super elite rider. But the fact that Sky allegedly use more sophisticated products than Katusha, Garmin and other teams I strongly question.


As to deleted part, there was nothing new actually. I just once again wonder why people consider Sky boys weaker riders other things being equal. Invisible quintessence of Sky clinics thread is something like — 'They are nobody. If everyone had used the same doping, they would have sucked hugely'. I disagree with that. Froome and Wiggins are such legitimate champions like anyone else in terms of doping.

This post is amazingly well written. Noone's that stupid to exclude any chance of Sky doping, but calling Froome a non-talent is just going too far. It's actually pretty ignorant, but some just won't get it.

Riders aren't machines all the time, season planning, change in training, rider development(both mentally and physically) , illnesses, family/team problems and many more; all these have their effect on a rider's ability to perform at the expected level.

However, some here are claiming Froome shouldn't even have a pro contract in the first place, that he isn't at all talented etc. But why would Sky even consider signing him in their first year? Apparently they still saw some possibilities in him, although he didn't show his qualities for a while. Mental problems and minor issues riding in the peloton cost him a lot of energy.

He probably used dope to get to the level he has now, but him being more mentally stable, and better at saving energy in the peloton and avoiding unnecessary crashes have very likely played a big role in his breakthough as well. If Froome disappears suddenly(like I thought he would in 2012), I'll believe the haters are right, but until then he's not (much) worse than other major WT riders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I hugely respect you and your cycling enthusiasm, but where does this willingness to adapt any rider's career for some ideal consistent way of improving comes from? Riders never improve the same and will never be. Sometimes talented rider doesn't know his limits and is not mentally stable. Sometimes management doesn't believe in him and bets on others. Sometimes hard work beats any talent. There is a million of circumstances which preordain the final outcome. What universal scheme of consistency can be made up I don't know...

Yes, one is free to support absolute consistency, but in this case one should admit the fact that one'll get 1 or 2 elite riders in a decade to support.

Sadly, the CN forum didn't exist in 2007. But IMO if most of forumities looked into account Schleck's and Contador's Giro's and Tour's cases, it wouldn't have been a shock, it would of been horror of indignation. So to me that is just the situation of what one calls normal. Probably, within a year Froome will win a GT and his success will start being considered such a norma like Contador's, Schleck's, Evans' or anyone else.

In fact, the extent of suspicion hit such a high point in cycling that any change of eras among riders is doomed to collide with disturbance we see here.


Yes, Froome uses doping. Very likely, biharzia played a key role in his becoming as a super elite rider. But the fact that Sky allegedly use more sophisticated products than Katusha, Garmin and other teams I strongly question.


As to deleted part, there was nothing new actually. I just once again wonder why people consider Sky boys weaker riders other things being equal. Invisible quintessence of Sky clinics thread is something like — 'They are nobody. If everyone had used the same doping, they would have sucked hugely'. I disagree with that. Froome and Wiggins are such legitimate champions like anyone else in terms of doping.

OK, I was thinking from the context that there might have been something you'd said about me specifically. And while I know some riders develop differently to others, the incidences of riders who've gone from barely showing anything in two and a half years to best riders in the péloton are very, very few and most of them have doping in common. And while you point out the surprise packages of 2007 being Contador and Schleck, it's worth noting that both were younger in 2007 than Froome was in 2011, and both had shown more promise more recently. Contador was top 5 of Castilla y León back in 2003, and in 2005 he won the Setmana Catalana, podiumed País Vasco and top 5ed Romandie, swapping the Romandie and País Vasco results the following year. His wins in Paris-Nice and the Tour therefore don't seem quite so out of the ordinary in context, step up though they were. Andy was more out of nowhere, but he had some reasonable results over 2005-6 as a youngster. You could argue that Froome's sudden transformation being at 25 is similar to Andy's, and covered by the bilharzia and the different starts in a less traditional cycling haven. That would be fair enough, but also you will no doubt be aware that Andy gets much ridicule and is thought of by most here as a doper because super-peaking is pretty inherently suspicious. Which is also part of why Froome gets it in the neck. Because until this season, he was a super-peaker, with bilharzia used as the justification for sucking except for GT preparation.

To me I think Sky get a rough ride for a couple of reasons. The first, which is minor in terms of how much it makes people think of doping, but probably more major in the opinions of many posters than they really want to admit, is aesthetic. Fans watch the races to be entertained, not out of a sense of obligation, so if the races aren't entertaining, that will have an effect on how they feel about the people they consider responsible. Try searching for "Libertine" and "Stapleton" or "Scheldeprijs" in the forums for an example. A lot of the time, the "exciting" dopers aren't pilloried as much as the "dull" ones, because the dull riders will get pilloried for their riding styles in addition to facing the constant calls of doping. Try searching for "Leipheimer" and "Suisse" for an example. The second, however, is more important. Sky have built a big, big part of their PR out of various component parts of "Super Clean Awesome Sanitized For Your Protection Transparent Careful Mega-Anti-Doping Yeah! Team" propaganda. This means that when they start riding like Mapei or LA-MSS, people find it more offensive than if they won races in a less egregiously dominant fashion, especially when they start sticking the same propaganda about honesty and transparency down your throat after winning races in the style of Gewiss-Ballan despite not doing the slightest thing to justify it. I.e. if you're going to trump yourself up as being extra-specially honest and transparent, then you're going to have a higher standard expected of you than, say, Androni Giocattoli... so you're going to seem like more of a letdown when you perform like that. People almost expect Savio's guys to be riding around like they're on dope. But the constant repetition of their various mantras, with the addition of a large section of the fanbase that want to believe, and will therefore convince themselves it's believable (it is) and gladly hold on to the justifications they're fed so long as they're not too outlandish and stupid, means that debate will continue to rage, because there are justifications for each rider's various dramatic improvements... but there is also no getting around the fact that various riders who may have had promise but were not especially successful prior to being at Team Sky have suddenly vaulted into the élites of the sport, and the team is now stacked full of top level stars who could - on their Team Sky form - lead most of the other WT teams, and the chances of the level of coincidence required to explain this away continue to decrease as more riders put in more and more dominant performances. And the more stretches of the imagination that have to take place to justify the performances clean, the less likely the listener is to pay heed when forced to listen to the same, tired, repetitive droning spiel about marginal gains and doing it clean. Which also ties in to the same tendency of something repeated ad nauseaum to generate antipathy.

Well, that and there's some hot air on both sides of the debate. A lot of performances will be made into more than they are because of the team that does them because of the antipathy that's generated. This then means that those suspicious of Sky show more antipathy in their post, which makes their posts generate more antipathy in those supportive of Sky and vice versa.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The first, which is minor in terms of how much it makes people think of doping, but probably more major in the opinions of many posters than they really want to admit, is aesthetic. Fans watch the races to be entertained, not out of a sense of obligation, so if the races aren't entertaining, that will have an effect on how they feel about the people they consider responsible.

Disagree. More than one rider going from mid-pack to podium destroyer SCREAMS doping. If it were only one rider, then it is still zero-to-hero doping.

While I see your point about entertainment value, you ignore what doping does to the entertainment value of a race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Disagree. More than one rider going from mid-pack to podium destroyer SCREAMS doping. If it were only one rider, then it is still zero-to-hero doping.

While I see your point about entertainment value, you ignore what doping does to the entertainment value of a race.

Of course. But would you contest my assertion that Emanuele Sella doping to the gills in the 2008 Giro mountains had less of a negative effect on the entertainment value of the race than the US Postal train had on, say, the 2004 Tour?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Of course. But would you contest my assertion that Emanuele Sella doping to the gills in the 2008 Giro mountains had less of a negative effect on the entertainment value of the race than the US Postal train had on, say, the 2004 Tour?

Fair enough. Looking back, there's no right answer to this. I didn't really need to reply to the original post.

 

[roundabout]

When he went on the climb to Aprica there was zero doubt in my mind that he would win.

When he won the stage to Fedaia the only concern was the effect of his break the previous day.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Right, and you called him on the day of the 1999 Prologue too or did you start having doubts in the '98 Vuelta already?

No I was fooled for awhile, just like you are now.

 

[The Hitch]

Noone's that stupid to exclude any chance of Sky doping, but calling Froome a non-talent is just going too far. It's actually pretty ignorant, but some just won't get it.

Dude, you do realize that Bailsford himself ranked Froome as someone not good enough for wt a year before Froome became the best?

 

[Ripper]

This didnt trigger an alarm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WRqxW9Jyt8
?

How long before he got popped? Three years?

That was such a full *** race!

 

[Ripper]

This didnt trigger an alarm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WRqxW9Jyt8
?

How long before he got popped? Three years?

Right, and you called him on the day of the 1999 Prologue too or did you start having doubts in the '98 Vuelta already?

The funny thing is, back in '98 I still did not "get it" entirely. I believed the first pharmstrong lies. It was over the course of the USPS years that I learned about what really was winning the races, including pre-pharmstrong (e.g. Gewiss-Ballan, Big Mig, etc).

Of course, WV it looks like you could stand to make that leap ...

 

[Mr. McQ]

That was such a full *** race!

That was a great race.

 

[airstream]

The 2008 Giro alongside with 2009 Vuelta were the most defensive GTs I've ever seen. Astana were weak, Liquigas too. The peloton lacked any lead-out initiative, so LPR had to chase and they were riding very slowly. So I wasn't surprised much by Sella.

 

[armchairclimber]

That was a great race.

It looked ridiculous at the time. It looks even more ridiculous now.
You don't see anyone able to do that these days. Short bursts of acceleration, yes; sustained threshold riding, yes....but nothing like that.

 

[LaFlorecita]

It looked ridiculous at the time. It looks even more ridiculous now.
You don't see anyone able to do that these days. Short bursts of acceleration, yes; sustained threshold riding, yes....but nothing like that.

I have this feeling that we'll see plenty of that in the tour. Or wait it will probably just be "short bursts of acceleration" followed by "sustained threshold riding". In other words, riding away from everyone else as if they're doing trackstands. Second will be another skyborg? The forum will be funny when Froome breaks the alpe d'huez record

 

[Ferminal]

What do you mean? That's how Contador rides. No doubt his average speed is lower today but not much has changed in his style over the years.

Unless you know of a substance which changes your riding style... You can ride at 3 W/kg and still ride like Contador (in a stylistic sense).

 

[Pentacycle]

Dude, you do realize that Bailsford himself ranked Froome as someone not good enough for wt a year before Froome became the best?

Although I realize you're talking about 'the graph', it's all circumstantial evidence. Do you have a quote of Brentford saying that Froome was incapable of riding at WT level? JV, among other team managers, has always been interested in signing him, so even before that infamous Vuelta some people knew about Froome's talent. I seriously doubt he was already written off at Sky at the time, if he really was a nobody they'd not kept open the option of re-signing him for that long.

Though I very much doubt he'd be riding this good at Garmin instead of Sky, with one of the most stringent internal controls around. It's still a mystery what he could be doing back home in Africa, does he even get as much OOC controls there as a rider in Europe would have?

 

[del1962]

Although I realize you're talking about 'the graph', it's all circumstantial evidence. Do you have a quote of Brentford saying that Froome was incapable of riding at WT level? JV, among other team managers, has always been interested in signing him, so even before that infamous Vuelta some people knew about Froome's talent. I seriously doubt he was already written off at Sky at the time, if he really was a nobody they'd not kept open the option of re-signing him for that long.

Though I very much doubt he'd be riding this good at Garmin instead of Sky, with one of the most stringent internal controls around. It's still a mystery what he could be doing back home in Africa, does he even get as much OOC controls there as a rider in Europe would have?

A few South African Riders have been pinged recently, so it is not as if there is no testing there.

 

[Pentacycle]

A few South African Riders have been pinged recently, so it is not as if there is no testing there.

And Kenia? The long distance runners there don't seem to be suffering much from controls, and I doubt Froome gets controlled there as much as in Europe or SA. Athletics is a much easier sport to cheat in altogether though, but it's an interesting comparison if OOC controls in cycling lack as well in Eastern Africa.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Although I realize you're talking about 'the graph', it's all circumstantial evidence. Do you have a quote of Brentford saying that Froome was incapable of riding at WT level?

Nothing to do with the graph.

Froome had not renewed his contract with Sky - because none had been offered - pre-Vuelta 2011.

 

[airstream]

I have this feeling that we'll see plenty of that in the tour. Or wait it will probably just be "short bursts of acceleration" followed by "sustained threshold riding". In other words, riding away from everyone else as if they're doing trackstands. Second will be another skyborg? The forum will be funny when Froome breaks the alpe d'huez record

I think if it happens, he'll put into the second 4-5 minutes. So you can be relatively quiet.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I have this feeling that we'll see plenty of that in the tour. Or wait it will probably just be "short bursts of acceleration" followed by "sustained threshold riding". In other words, riding away from everyone else as if they're doing trackstands. Second will be another skyborg? The forum will be funny when Froome breaks the alpe d'huez record

Instead of actually doing track-stands while your main competition goes past you?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The forum will be funny when Froome breaks the alpe d'huez record

Pantani's record is 36:50, pre 50% limit and pre EPO test. You can count the number of ascents within three minutes of this in the last decade on the digits of one hand. Even sub 40 minute ascents - or equivalents on other climbds - since Lance retired are also rare.

What makes you think Froome - or anyone not on a motorbike - is going to get anywhere close to Pantani's record?

 

[Lanark]

Going faster than Pantani is completely ridiculous, no sane person can think anybody, no matter how doped up, can come close to that.

I wouldn't be surprised if Froome is reasonably faster than they were in 2011, he can probably do it a minute faster at least.

 

[Bexon30]

I have this feeling that we'll see plenty of that in the tour. Or wait it will probably just be "short bursts of acceleration" followed by "sustained threshold riding". In other words, riding away from everyone else as if they're doing trackstands. Second will be another skyborg? The forum will be funny when Froome breaks the alpe d'huez record

When he breaks the record on the 2nd accent lolz.




I like to think that the tour this year may be a closer affair especially in the Alps. I'm aware Froome looks especially dominant just this part of the season, but I believe Bertie and Andy(obviously) are waiting for July. Plus Pinot, Rolland, TJ and Quintana and maybe a few more will really take it to Sky/Wiggo/Froome. I'm trying to stay optimistic in my thoughts and think Froome could crack with constant pressure. His saving grace will be the ITT though. But one bad day or crack in the mountains could really dent his chances and he could loose a few minutes and chunks of morale. Regardless of individuals chances the best way to get at Sky/Froome is to continually attack them singling their top dog and then continue to put him in danger. Psychologically Froome might implode and then damage will be done.
At least I hope this happen but the bullish dominant train just seems to de rail any other competitors if its allowed to. An attacking tour is needed.