chris froome

LeoD · 29-07-2015 5:06pm

walshb wrote: »

How so? What is so glaringly obvious with Froome that points to previous times?

i don't think Froome's performance level in the last 4 years is impossible for the world's best to achieve 'clean' but it's his jump from a nobody that Sky were even going to dump from the team at the end of 2011 to the most dominant Grand Tour rider in the world that has people wondering how the f**k did he do that - hence the curiosity to see the numbers. Just look at him - nothing about him even resembles what you'd expect from the world's best bike rider - the physique, the riding style, the race tactics, etc. The guy won an olympic TT bronze medal for god's sake 3 years after finishing a minute behind David McCann in World TT (but ahead of his pal Bradley Wiggins but that's another story). An amazing transformation at such a late stage in his career - no wonder people have concerns.

David Brailsford's favourite website

walshb · 29-07-2015 5:24pm

LeoD wrote: »

Just look at him - nothing about him even resembles what you'd expect from the world's best bike rider - the physique, the riding style, the race tactics, etc.

]

I don't get this way of looking at it. If he looks so not like a champion then what bloody drugs are making him so great? Drugs help, but seriously, they don't turn donkeys into racehorses. The guy is a great cyclist. End of. His physical appearance here is completely irrelevant. Many great cyclists didn't look all that.

diomed · 29-07-2015 5:25pm

Unusually high cadence, very low body fat.
That reminds me of someone.

walshb · 29-07-2015 5:26pm

mcgratheoin wrote: »

You're kinda missing the point here though - this is not just about Froome, it's about the structures that are in place throughout cycling that can still facilitate doping - the secrecy, the omerta, the unapologetic ex-dopers running teams, the ex-dopers prevalent at every level of the sport, the closing of ranks to any questioning, the aggressive responses and the repetition of everything we've seen and heard before. The anger towards SKY, that seems excessive when compared to that directed at Astana for example, is a backlash at having had the wool pulled over our eyes again by another team that promised much and delivered none of it. There's a very good post on the cycling news forum that sums up the anger here

I was more speaking about Froome, though. I agree with your post above as regards the whole organizational aspect surrounding cycling as a sport. There's a lot of dirty laundry, but there is also a lot of clean laundry, and for me, Froome is one wearing clean laundry. It's unfortunate that the dirt gets splashed onto him.

Nermal · 29-07-2015 5:26pm

walshb wrote: »

Example: I am close to 100 percent that Bolt is a genuine and honest and decent and clean athlete who happens to be extraordinarily fast.

Not this again... You're trotting out loads of opinions, but you're not backing them up with anything.

'I believe X is clean' isn't really adding anything to the discussion. What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on? The fact that the media presents him as a cool personality? That he's a bit tall? The tripe written about him living on chicken nuggets and never training?

You have the air of someone who swallows everything the media tells you.

eeeee · 29-07-2015 5:29pm

walshb wrote: »

There is a section of society who won't believe anything, and label any of the best as cheats. It's unfortunate.

Whilst this is out there, I think the biggest reason for the SKY hate is below:

Brian? wrote: »

No obligation, except the one they made themselves. They promised transparency and failed to deliver.

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Because they said that they were going to be the most transparent and open team ever, they weren't going to hire ex-dopers, they weren't going to use cycling doctors and they weren't going to seek TUEs for riders. If they want to regain the public trust that they lost by reneging on their promises, this would be a good way to go about it.

They promised one thing and have done another on many occasions. Froome's transformation is part of that. They made so much noise about being different and then proceeded not to be. That's the nub of it. The racing style doesn't endear them either.

Personally, I can't get excited about Froome at all. I find him incredibly boring. Boring to listen to, watch etc. His riding stye is ungainly. The way SKY ride for him isn't exactly riveting. He's a perfectly nice chap by all accounts, but none of these things endear himself to fans or the press and the way SKY is doesn't help him either. It's the combination of all these factors that create the attitude people have towards Froome.

walshb · 29-07-2015 5:30pm

Nermal wrote: »

Not this again... You're trotting out loads of opinions, but you're not backing them up with anything.

'I believe X is clean' isn't really adding anything to the discussion. What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on? The fact that the media presents him as a cool personality? That he's a bit tall? The tripe written about him living on chicken nuggets and never training?

You have the air of someone who swallows everything the media tells you.

I don't really need to back it up. I could say something like Bolt to date has never been found to have used PEDs. But, to some that means nothing. Like a lot of the athletes, I can't win. Pi££ing against the wind with some people.

mcgratheoin · 29-07-2015 5:33pm

Nermal wrote: »

What are you basing this opinion of Bolt on?

He has been an athletic freak since he was a kid, it's not as if he was crap until he turned 25 and then started beating everyone around him.

Nermal · 29-07-2015 5:40pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't really need to back it up. I could say something like Bolt to date has never been found to have used PEDs. But, to some that means nothing. Like a lot of the athletes, I can't win. Pi££ing against the wind with some people.

You don't need to back it up, but if you don't no-one can take you seriously.

Bolt:

- Comes from a country known for abysmal testing regime
- Coached by/on a team with people who have still failed to pass even that regime
- Has absolutely THRASHED the times of known dopers while jogging past the finish line
- Competes in a sport where at the elite level margins are tiny, and doping can have a comparatively huge effect

But hey, he mimes having a bow & arrow after the race - that's enough for me!

mcgratheoin wrote: »

He has been an athletic freak since he was a kid, it's not as if he was crap until he turned 25 and then started beating everyone around him.

That's true of him and not Froome, I agree. On the other hand, his performances are far, FAR more of an outlier than Froome's. Probably unprecedented.

MPFG · 29-07-2015 5:41pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't get this way of looking at it. If he looks so not like a champion then what bloody drugs are making him so great? Drugs help, but seriously, they don't turn donkeys into racehorses. The guy is a great cyclist. End of. His physical appearance here is completely irrelevant. Many great cyclists didn't look all that.

You are fighting a losing battle on here ...because you say one thing and its another in the comeback
All the issues raised about SKY could and should be addressed to other teams equally but they are not. No one else get the level of scrutiny or abuse and then the comeback is 'but SKY need to be X, Y or Z'. The anti SKY bias is remarkable and unjustified by so many . If one doubts cycling then SKY is not the place to start nor the team to focus on...but all do..The article in the Irish Idependent today I thought was terrible..Did they ask questions and raise concerns over Stephen Roches Grand Tours or Sean Kellys classic wins. The same people who expect everything from SKY and say we are only asking questions while all the while casting aspersions at only ONE team never scrutinized in the manner they now call for.

This Tour showed Froome's performance was not unbelievable. He was beaten by Nibali one day & Quintana was better in the mountains. But where is this logic in the so called reasonable debate. Only when SKY do well are there calls about doping. Anyone else matches or beats them and here is silence.
Hypocrisy is rife

diomed · 29-07-2015 5:53pm

Froome was disqualified for holding on to a motorbike going up a climb in the Giro d'Italia in 2010.
Since then he has won two grand tours, three seconds (2012 TDF 2nd riding for Team Sky to Bradley Wiggins, Team Sky).

Lumen · 29-07-2015 5:59pm

gadetra wrote: »

Whilst this is out there, I think the biggest reason for the SKY hate is below

The Sky hate started well before that.

DonegalBay · 29-07-2015 6:01pm

MPFG wrote: »

You are fighting a losing battle on here ...because you say one thing and its another in the comeback
All the issues raised about SKY could and should be addressed to other teams equally but they are not. No one else get the level of scrutiny or abuse and then the comeback is 'but SKY need to be X, Y or Z'. The anti SKY bias is remarkable and unjustified by so many . If one doubts cycling then SKY is not the place to start nor the team to focus on...but all do..The article in the Irish Idependent today I thought was terrible..Did they ask questions and raise concerns over Stephen Roches Grand Tours or Sean Kellys classic wins. The same people who expect everything from SKY and say we are only asking questions while all the while casting aspersions at only ONE team never scrutinized in the manner they now call for.

This Tour showed Froome's performance was not unbelievable. He was beaten by Nibali one day & Quintana was better in the mountains. But where is this logic in the so called reasonable debate. Only when SKY do well are there calls about doping. Anyone else matches or beats them and here is silence.
Hypocrisy is rife

But what other teams have made such a big deal out of transparency and zero tolerance from the get go as SKY did. Doing it the correct way was SKYs big thing when they formed.

Garmin preach clean team but whilst not much better than SKY have not had the level of success and dominance that SKY have had. Other teams do claim a clean agenda but are less brash about it than SKY are e.g Giant/FDJ/IAM. Have you seriously ever heard the likes of Movistar/Katusha/Quick Step/Saxo etc make a big deal of cleanliness/transparency.

If you set out to hold yourself to a higher standard that the rest, then you will be held to that standard so no point whining about being treated unfairly if you fail to meet that standard.

sean_b97 · 29-07-2015 6:04pm

He's just at the top of his game.... no need to assume doping even in the current world of cycling

sean_b97 · 29-07-2015 6:05pm

not ruling it out 100% just think people are assuming it far too quickly

sean_b97 · 29-07-2015 6:06pm

hope im not hammered by the anti-froomers

Don't Chute! · 29-07-2015 6:07pm

diomed wrote: »

Froome was disqualified for holding on to a motorbike going up a climb in the Giro d'Italia in 2010.
Since then he has won two grand tours, three seconds (2012 TDF 2nd riding for Team Sky to Bradley Wiggins, Team Sky).

And that proves what exactly?

diomed · 29-07-2015 6:08pm

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/04/the-new-epo-gw1516-aicar-and-their-use-in-cycling/

If you want to see mice on bicycles

I don't speak French, but you get the idea from the video that AICAR and GW1516 are easy to buy on the internet.

Brian? · 29-07-2015 6:09pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't really need to back it up. I could say something like Bolt to date has never been found to have used PEDs. But, to some that means nothing. Like a lot of the athletes, I can't win. Pi££ing against the wind with some people.

You know Usain Bolts strength and conditioning coach used to work as a chemist for Balco? It would be hilarious of it wasn't so upsetting.

It's the perfect example of why people are so cynical.

Brian? · 29-07-2015 6:15pm

Lumen wrote: »

The Sky hate started well before that.

I don't really hate Sky or Christopher Froome. Hate is an over used, very strong word. I just don't like them.

I don't believe they have a culture of systematic doping either. I've said that at least 5 times in this thread I reckon. Transparency is the issue.

They need to adjust their methods. Hire ex dopers but join the MPCCC (maybe more Cs, maybe less). Publish their data. Do GCN programmes with their chef. Stop being so poxy abrasive when asked questions.

DonegalBay · 29-07-2015 6:18pm

Why is there more belief in Quintana than Froome?

Quintana was seen as a huge talent from a young age, the team he developed at in Colombia were noted for their anti-doping stance. They willingly joined the Bio-Passport program even though as a continental team, there was no requirement to do so and it cost them big time financially. But they believed in doing it correctly.

Quintana came to Europe at 20 and dominated the Tour de L'Avenir which is the biggest development race in the world. In his first GT, he was up there as the main domestique for Valverde. 2nd in his first Tour at 23, 1st in his first Giro and now 2nd again in the Tour all before he has left the young rider category.

Compare that to Froomes career progression and it easy to see why there is more belief in one than the other.

Quintanas size and frame is built for climbing, compared to Froome he is weak at the TT but as there was no TT this year, it didn't have an effect. Froome can match the best climbers and the best TT riders which again is unusual. Quintana cannot.

To me Quintana is a huge talent who is on the edge of believabilty, evrything about his development, strengths, weaknesses seems par for the course of what is accepted as normal.

Froome on the other hand!!!

diomed · 29-07-2015 6:24pm

black and amber wrote: »

And that proves what exactly?

It exactly proves
up to 2010 he was 83rd, 34th, DSQ in Grand Tours.
2011 onwards he was [2nd] [2nd, 4th] [1st] [DNF, 2nd] [1st]

His four wins in other stage races were 2013(2); 2014(1); 2015(1)
He joined Team Sky in 2010.

GetWithIt · 29-07-2015 6:25pm

DonegalBay, just to completely troll your argument, but didn't Quintana beat Froome in the prologue/tt this year?

DonegalBay · 29-07-2015 6:31pm

GetWithIt wrote: »

DonegalBay, just to completely troll your argument, but didn't Quintana beat Froome in the prologue/tt this year?

No 11 seconds down of Froome and that was a weak performance from Froome compared to his previous TTs where he matched the likes of Tony Martin/Fabian Cancellara etc.

diomed · 29-07-2015 6:41pm

I'll do a little quoting from a cycling book I read recently

"These two products (AICAR, TP500) also bring about an increase in lipolysis (the breakdown of fat to produce energy). They maintain lipolysis during intense efforts.
To be more specific, when an athlete is riding at 80 per cent of his maximum, in principle he stops burning fat and only burns carbohydrate. .... This additional power, which stems from the use of fat reserves, offers a huge advantage. It is absolutely impossible to achieve naturally."
"With regard to growth factor GAS6, this allows the secretion of endogenous EPO. It is completely undetectable."

Is cycling clean? I doubt it. Has it improved since Lance Armstrong? I doubt it.

DonegalBay · 29-07-2015 7:00pm

diomed wrote: »

I'll do a little quoting from a cycling book I read recently

"These two products (AICAR, TP500) also bring about an increase in lipolysis (the breakdown of fat to produce energy). They maintain lipolysis during intense efforts.
To be more specific, when an athlete is riding at 80 per cent of his maximum, in principle he stops burning fat and only burns carbohydrate. .... This additional power, which stems from the use of fat reserves, offers a huge advantage. It is absolutely impossible to achieve naturally."
"With regard to growth factor GAS6, this allows the secretion of endogenous EPO. It is completely undetectable."

Is cycling clean? I doubt it. Has it improved since Lance Armstrong? I doubt it.

I think it has improved since Armstrong days, the average ascent times for Alpe d'Huez in the bio-passport era are the slowest since pre EPO years. There are still super amazing performances though which match the Armstrong era times but they are less frequent. Will never be totally clean as has been proven by a few positive tests in the last few days.

mistermatthew · 29-07-2015 7:21pm

diomed wrote: »

Froome was disqualified for holding on to a motorbike going up a climb in the Giro d'Italia in 2010.
Since then he has won two grand tours, three seconds (2012 TDF 2nd riding for Team Sky to Bradley Wiggins, Team Sky).

He had a knee injury, that's why he was holding the car. People pretend it was because he was getting dropped.
I don't know if this is what you have read or believe. But it was not a lack of ability to complete the climb that had him holding the car. It was injury. His previous grand tour before the dq was 34th on GC in the tour, showing surviving the climbs was not an issue.

helimachoptor · 29-07-2015 8:07pm

meeting Nico next friday.. will ask him is he also on the secret sauce

Dietsquirt · 29-07-2015 8:38pm

mitosis wrote: »

A lot is natural talent, some hard work, we may not speculate what the remainder is.

Time for the world to wake up (not suggesting anything MODs

)

happytramp · 29-07-2015 8:49pm

walshb wrote: »

Drugs help, but seriously, they don't turn donkeys into racehorses.

Except that's exactly what EPO did.... to a T.

chris froome

Comments