Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Foxy, the thing with bilharzia is no-one not even Froome knows how many times he's had it.

So it seems he jumps into the Victoria Sea now and then, just to have an excuse?
Even for me this Bazilla issue is absurd.
No one with a right mind would risk a 2nd infection, since it´s really really easy to prevent...
If I had been the PR director, I´d have come up with Malaria. Can´t prevent it (unless you cream yourself full body from 7 p.m. on, and your bed has a full intact mosquito net), can get re-infections. My two cents...

 

[Nathan12]

So it seems he jumps into the Victoria Sea now and then, just to have an excuse?
Even for me this Bazilla issue is absurd.
No one with a right mind would risk a 2nd infection, since it´s really really easy to prevent...
If I had been the PR director, I´d have come up with Malaria. Can´t prevent it (unless you cream yourself full body from 7 p.m. on, and your bed has a full intact mosquito net), can get re-infections. My two cents...

The thing is, I do think he had it- as a child possibly, or at the beginning of his career. So it's a more convenient excuse than making something up as they'd have had to with malaria- they roughly know the symptoms, and what it might do to the body. But you can see for yourself by watching this video: at 3 minutes, Froome says he "just needs to avoid swimming in any dirty rivers or lakes" to avoid the disease. So reinfection is not the problem, and, more to the point, Froome knows exactly how to avoid being reinfected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVVsbPJ4pJw

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So reinfection is not the problem, and, more to the point, Froome knows exactly how to avoid being reinfected.

So did he got re-infected or not? When did he got it first. Was the therapy working? For me the bilharzia story is nebulous

 

[Nathan12]

So did he got re-infected or not? When did he got it first. Was the therapy working? For me the bilharzia story is nebulous

He was never reinfected. He gives various dates as to when he got it: as a child or any of six, two or one year prior to diagnosis. The therapy can't have been working, because he had to have treatment every six months from December 2010 to December 2013. Then, miraculously, in December 2013 the biltricide began to work and he was cured. It's nebulous alright- by design, and because Froome can't stick to one version of the story. the truth is simple and all that...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

He was never reinfected. He gives various dates as to when he got it: as a child or any of six, two or one year prior to diagnosis. The therapy can't have been working, because he had to have treatment every six months from December 2010 to December 2013. Then, miraculously, in December 2013 the biltricide began to work and he was cured. It's nebulous alright- by design, and because Froome can't stick to one version of the story. the truth is simple and all that...

Omg is that complicated.
Did I understood you right?
1.) He got infected by age 6 something
2.) He did not get reinfected, but somehow got it again either 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. A very mysterious sickness that he got only once but re-occured once in a while. BTW is that possible with Bazilla/Bilharzia? Can it re-occur?
3.) He finally was healed in 2013, cira 20 year after the infection?

 

[deValtos]

Omg is that complicated.
Did I understood you right?
1.) He got infected by age 6 something
2.) He did not get reinfected, but somehow got it again either 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. A very mysterious sickness that he got only once but re-occured once in a while. BTW is that possible with Bazilla/Bilharzia? Can it re-occur?
3.) He finally was healed in 2013, cira 20 year after the infection?

According to Wikipedia Bilharzia is a chronic disease, which means it's a life long condition that can be controlled but not cured.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

According to Wikipedia Bilharzia is a chronic disease, which means it's a life long condition that can be controlled but not cured.

As a layman that I am, is it correct to assume that it explains everything then?
Being infected with a chronic disease that stopped him from performing to his full potential until he finally got healed?
I am not kidding, a serious question..

 

[red_flanders]

This really is the question that everyone wants info on. I don't care about Vo2 or even his blood I just want a few pre September 2011 SRM files.

Grappe was clear that Froome's output did show much variation from the 2011 Vuelta to the 2013 Tour. That is pretty believable. His TT's improved but his peak climbing is about the same in Vuelta 2011, Tour 2012, Tour 2013.

Grappe is disingenuous when he says Froome's figures are stable as he is not addressing the time period people are curious about, pre-Vuelta 2011. Froome was a Pro for almost 5 seasons prior to the 2011 Vuelta, how is it there is ZERO information from that period? Nada, nothing......It makes no sense.

I hear lots of folks screaming for a Vo2 test but most teams don't focus on those much anymore.....but a power meter reading from 2009 showing him averaging 400 watts for an hour, like he did in the 2011 Vuelta, would make a huge statement.

Sky knows this is an issue. I talked with Yates at the Tour, he was very enthusiastic about Froome and his abilities but when I asked him about what caused his huge leap in form in the 2011 Vuelta he just shrugged, smiled, and said "I have no idea"

Thanks, good post. Very interesting about Yates. His response again fits the doping narrative perfectly. Would also love to hear from those who were discussing this before as well.

 

[red_flanders]

Not a big deal, but there is the Badzilla thread for those that want a recap and discussion on that topic. It's been debunked enough that it feels like it's starting to clog this one, no?

 

[Nathan12]

As a layman that I am, is it correct to assume that it explains everything then?
Being infected with a chronic disease that stopped him from performing to his full potential until he finally got healed?
I am not kidding, a serious question..

There's a clear contradiction here though- if it were a lifelong disease, he wouldn't have been cured in December 2013. At one point Froome says the disease is incurable. That's complete rubbish, and something he's read on wikipedia.

 

[deValtos]

Not a big deal, but there is the Badzilla thread for those that want a recap and discussion on that topic. It's been debunked enough that it feels like it's starting to clog this one, no?

Can I get a link ? I can't find it and I'd like to read more.

@FoxxxyBrown I don't know enough about Bilharzia to know what explanations it offers. Seems Froome doesn't know either

I'll trust Wikipedia for the moment.

Edit: Nvm found the thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21198

 

[Wiggo Warrior]

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

I don't know whether it was from Brailsford but at the time it was mentioned that Grappe requested the data on climbs he already had estimates for. I assume he had no estimates for earlier climbs.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Not a big deal, but there is the Badzilla thread for those that want a recap and discussion on that topic. It's been debunked enough that it feels like it's starting to clog this one, no?

No thanks. At least me I don´t wanna waste my time to sift trou peoples infights about this and that...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

According to Wikipedia Bilharzia is a chronic disease, which means it's a life long condition that can be controlled but not cured.

There's a clear contradiction here though- if it were a lifelong disease, he wouldn't have been cured in December 2013. At one point Froome says the disease is incurable. That's complete rubbish, and something he's read on wikipedia.

So we don´t know nothing. It can be cured, it can´t... and nobody knows when he got it.

 

[peloton]

So we don´t know nothing. It can be cured, it can´t... and nobody knows when he got it.

There is a thread for it...
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21198&highlight=Badzilla

 

[sniper]

I don't know whether it was from Brailsford but at the time it was mentioned that Grappe requested the data on climbs he already had estimates for. I assume he had no estimates for earlier climbs.

afaik, Grappe hadn't requested anything. He looked at the data that was given to him.

 

[Race Radio]

So we don´t know nothing. It can be cured, it can´t... and nobody knows when he got it.

Regardless if it can be cured or when he got it the first thing any athlete will do when faced with roller coaster form, coupled with symptoms of illness, they start tracking the isssues.

The issue was so significant that Froome visited multiple doctors. it is hard to image that he did not start tracking the episodes, what he ate, the effect on his heart rate and power. It would be the first step that any team or doctor would demand this kind of tracking information.

Completely possible that he has had some illness......but why not share some of the powerfiles from this up/down period?

 

[red_flanders]

No thanks. At least me I don´t wanna waste my time to sift trou peoples infights about this and that...

You'd prefer to clog this thread with something that has had a full discussion already.

Okay, can we get a mod ruling on this? Thanks.

 

[red_flanders]

I guess a third scenario is that they were random / variable from pre-vuelta that might / might not correspond with random / variable performances. Depending on which - these could probably be slotted in to the two scenarios above.

What you have outlined above is well put but I think it would also depend on what they published - power, blood, etc. as to how the questions would go and how each of the scenarios would play out. Either way i agree they could be a lot more transparent (one thing i have often said is that their PR needs to be better).

I hope you're not reducing all that to "their PR could be better". It really doesn't address the scenarios in play at all.

I keep hoping for a more pointed discussion here, but it's pretty frustrating at times. Several people on this thread bring up well rounded and informed summaries of various incidents or facts, only to have them ignored or dismissed, then several pages later the people to whom these answers are directed start bringing them up again as if they hadn't already been answered in depth. Without ever responding in any way to the many points.

Not good discussion. One could make the conclusion they just ignore what they don't want to hear. I can't figure what else it might be.

 

[Benotti69]

27thousand plus posts and Sky fans think Sky's PR could be better!!!!!

Here is what Landis said last year about the sport

"All I can talk about is what I know from when I was racing. For me it doesn't appear that the risk and reward structure has changed. Nor has the management of cycling. There's not a lot of reason, other than taking people at their word that anything has really changed. We've seen where 'taking people at their word' leads us".

Nothing has changed and Sky want fans to believe they are beating a system that has not changed.

"We've seen where 'taking people at their word' leads us"

 

[Ripper]

I talked with Yates at the Tour, he was very enthusiastic about Froome and his abilities but when I asked him about what caused his huge leap in form in the 2011 Vuelta he just shrugged, smiled, and said "I have no idea"

Well that does not look good.

 

[Ripper]

Well he had been going home to Kenya and South Africa each year so its not beyond the bounds of possibilities that he has been reinfected.

Then he would have to continually seek out the types of places one would be infected. Such as spending time in an infected lake or rice paddies. Which, given his knowledge of the issue, seems highly unlikely.

 

[the sceptic]

Regardless if it can be cured or when he got it the first thing any athlete will do when faced with roller coaster form, coupled with symptoms of illness, they start tracking the isssues.

The issue was so significant that Froome visited multiple doctors. it is hard to image that he did not start tracking the episodes, what he ate, the effect on his heart rate and power. It would be the first step that any team or doctor would demand this kind of tracking information.

Completely possible that he has had some illness......but why not share some of the powerfiles from this up/down period?

Froome will probably look incredibly suspicious if sky release anything from before 2011. Better to let the haters and pseudo-scientists work with tailwinds and stopwatches.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Has anyone ever asked Brailsford why he was happy to release post Vuelta 2011 data to Grappe but nothing before that? Answer is screamingly obvious, can't believe no journo has asked it.

Be careful now. Be very careful....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok hands up on the focussing only on the track mistake - he did go road only for a couple of years with some smaller teams. But he was trying to do both in the run up to the 2008 games (but as a dom and not a gt contender) something i don't think would work well for anyone.

Greg LeMond was a domestique too, just, you know, for comparison with someone (Wiggins) who had such incredible potential to smash the peloton for 6 months straight some time down the track when his recovery is probably 10% less than it was when he was in his mid to late 20s.

And for something more recent, Froome was a domestique also, only recently, in 2012, and earlier in 2011.

Just because you are a domestique does not mean you cannot shine like a friggin beacon of GT potential.