Velorooms - Cycling Forum

Miscellany => The Dark Side => Topic started by: froome19 on October 17, 2012, 22:52

Title: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on October 17, 2012, 22:52
Thought we needed a separate thread and intro for Froome..  :D

(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article7939544.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/66-froome-getty.jpg)
Even subsequent to clearing up the matter of why Sky were capable of performing to such high levels there is still the dilemma of Chris Froome. His rise to the top was not only unprecedented, but in fact it was completely out of the blue and many people would say that there was not even so much as the slightest indication of his talent prior to the 2011 Vuelta.

Logically this would be a clear and very blatant sign as to possible doping; the simple explanation for the ridiculous leap would be due to doping. It was the factor which gave him the ability to perform beyond what he was previously capable of and it has been the cause of his ascension to one of the most highly rated Grand Tour riders who are currently racing in the modern peloton.

But in my opinion and from what I have read and heard about the rider, it seems as if his startling rise to the very summit of Grand Tour racing may not have been all that surprising. Personally I believe that he was hindered by a variety of factors, but behind all his struggles he encountered there was in fact a very talented cyclists waiting for the opportunity to prove his talent.



Froome was born in Nairobi to English parents, without going into unnecessary detail it should be mentioned that he started off racing BMX bikes and was racing by the age of 13, he then moved to South Africa at the age of 14.

It was in fact only once he was living in South Africa that he started to turn his attention to road cycling, but the infrastructure was not ideal and it would prove to be costly. Prior to his arrival in South Africa he had never even ridden a road bike, only BMX and Mountain bikes.

He was coached by David Kinjah who had competed to a decent level himself, but Froome did not receive anywhere close to the training expertise and coaching techniques that many of his rivals would have at similar ages.

It was only then at the age of 22 that Froome became pro, once again considering his talent he should have become pro earlier but it was obvious that he had been restricted by the limited resources that were available to him

Froome's first team was Team Konica Minolta and they were a South African team with limited resources as expected. In his first season he did relatively well a win at the Tour of Japan was followed by a number of placings around the globe as his team charted unprecedented territory.

It was at the Giro delle Regioni where Froome really started to show potential and in retrospect his perfomances were quite remarkable for a rider who was competing with such a distinct disadvantage due to his lack of skills and professional training. He won the primary mountain stage ahead of riders who have now become household names, the likes of Tour de France stage winner Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema who came 4th at the Vuelta 2011 amonst others.

This has been Froome's first real crack at proper European racing and he had taken to it amazingly well considering his limiting circumstances. In fact Froome would have dominated the race if not for his chain braking in the closing meters of the other major stage.

Yet even considering the amazing perfomance Froome has put in, it was not enough. He had been racing for the WCC (World Cycling Centre Team) whilst in Europe and the coach of the team Michael Theze said of Froome that...

Quote
He's not a technical rider yet. He fell four time during the race. Two of his falls came in the third stage, costing him 1:20. When you see that in the final ranking he is only 1:25 behind the winner it isn't difficult to do the maths."

It is obvious to us in retrospect that Froome was still far behind the other riders when it came to the technical skills required to race at the highest level and this placed him at a significant disadvantage.

Then in 2008 Froome was eventually snapped up by Barloworld and was therefore under the direction of their Italian manager Claudio Corti, now the manager of Farnese Vini. As would be expected of any neo-pro - no matter their talent - who was only starting out in their career, the season was to be used merely as an eye opener for Froome and for him to truly adjust to the European style of racing.

Yet even so Froome was impressive he finished in the Top 10 in a number of minor races and he safely finished a number of high profile classics such as Liege Bastogne Liege and La Fleche Wallone. His most impressive result though was his 5th place finish in a TT at the Vuelta asturias where he managed to finish a mere 26 seconds behind Samuel Sanchez the soon to be Olympic champion.

Froome was certainly showing signs of his potential. He was then given the opportunity to ride his first Grand Tour - the Tour de France and he battled through it, and then managing to eventually finish 14th on the final stage which was a TT.

If there was ever a test of strength to determine whether Froome had the potential to become a future Grand Tour contender it was this. Without the proper training or techniques and not being used to the rigours of a 3 week race, Froome nevertheless posted what would be considered a magnificent result for any neo-pro. Indeed this had already been proven a few days earlier when he had been climbing with the lead group for the majority of the Alpe d'huez climb.

2009 was a year where Froome seemed not to have made much improvement.

He came 6th in a Giro stage amonst other decent yet not spectacular results.
This was not the progression of an extremely talented rider who would go on to dominate the world of cycling, but rather of a mediocre rider who would remain inconspicuous amongst the pro ranks.





2009 should have been the year when Froome started to excel, but instead it turned out to be a year where he displayed nothing of any true substance. This has resulted in many people believing that Froome does not have the natural talent as his Tour rivals and that therefore the logical explanation for his current status in the sport is down to drugs.

This was what his team manage Claudio Corti had to say at the time. Corti claimed that Froome whom he dubbed his “white Kenyan” would

Quote
Finish in the top 5 of the Tour de France, or do even better”

Clearly Corti had seen what Froome was capable of and believed that he was indeed innately capable. He just was not racing at the level he was capable of racing at, because of the reason stated above, that he was hindered by his lack of technical prowess.

Then Froome joined Sky and his career would be totally altered. Sky had just started up and it took time for him to adjust. The whole set up was new to Froome and from what I have seen and heard it seems to be that Froome was on the outskirts of this setup. The Sky team were not as methodical then with all their riders as they are now and considering how Froome was still considered to be a peripheral member of the squad and therefore not treated with the same respect as riders like Wiggins, his technical skills were still rather poor and this still hindered him. But even more than that the defining reason for his poor reasons in 2010, which were headlined by a Tour de Haut var 9th place, was due to the fact that on Holiday in Kenya he had contracted the disease of Bilharzia.

Quote
“Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.
"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.
“It feeds on red blood cells so for an endurance athlete it’s a nightmare. It’s something I’m conscious of, in a three-week race you’re bound to have ups and downs.
Yet the Sky management team had in fact noticed his potential and had in fact described him as
Quote
a rough diamond, in need of shaping and polishing"

When Froome joined the team back in early 2010.

This is another indication of people who believed in Froome and that he was capable, but just had to improve his technical skills. And of course get over his Bilharzia.

Yet Bilharzia is an infection by parasites who lay eggs deep within the human body and therefore it is very difficult to get rid off.

Entering into the 2011 season Froome had two objectives if was to fulfil his potential. One was to get rid of the Bilharzia and the other was to increase his technical skills.

Luckily for him Bobby Julich had just arrived at Sky and he was assigned to Froome for the 2011 season. This was the first time that Froome had had the opportunity to work with a coach of Julich’s experience and calibre one to one and immediately Julich noted his riders potential.

Quote
We did some lab testing with him early in the year and it wasn’t making sense. I saw the numbers and said to Rod Ellingworth that the machines must be calibrated wrong, because these were the numbers of a guy who would finish on the Tour de France podium. Rod told me that, no, they were right. I was amazed.

Yet it soon became apparent to Julich as to the reason why Froome had underperformed so badly over the past 2 years..

Quote
But then when we started working together I realised straight away that Chris needed some work on organisation and structure. He was a real tinkerer- always changing his shoes, his training, his diet or whatever. He had also continued to train too much even when he was suffering with the parasite, which had knocked his confidence as well as his energy levels.

Beyond that it was all very basic stuff last year; Chris did not know how to race. I needed to teach him how to get the watts out at the right time. To do that we tried to hold him back in the first few stages in the Vuelta last year, get him to race steadily and this year we basically used the same tactic at Romandie, the Dauphine and the Tour”

I do not believe there is much better proof than that. It was obvious once again here that Froome had been hindered by his lack of education when it came to how to ride a bike.

Likewise Richard Moore commented on Froome’s website that:

Quote
After a difficult first season with Team Sky in 2010, he appears to have taken a big step forward this season, partly by working to reduce his upper body movement. Previously, by his own admission, Froome was "literally all over my bike".
"One of the things I want to do is calm my upper body down and become more stable," he explained.
Smooth
Froome thus spent many hours doing core-strengthening Pilates

Once again the reference to the way in which Froome rode his bike as being “all over”,  clearly highlights his deficiencies at the time.

And finally he was starting to get rid of the parasite disease which had bugged him so much. Indeed he was still adapting and learning with :Julich though and his performances were gradually improving as a result.  He came 8th  on a Romandie mountain stage. And top 10s at the Tour de Suisse and Tour of Luxembourg. It was not much granted, but it was clearly signs that he had finally managed to overcome his technical difficulties and was shaking off the effects of the Bilharzia. And of course the rest is very much a part of history.


In conclusion I believe it was always evident that Froome had the potential to become a future Tour de France podium finished.

Indeed his results in his 2007 season spoke volumes for his capabilities, yet when he turned pro it was obvious he could not continue to match those riders he had previously beaten unless he could improve his technical skills. Even if people do not believe his claim of having Bilharzia ,and I am in very little doubt myself at to its validity, it would still be safe to say that he was hindered by his lack of technical skills.

It is logical to assume that without those hindrances Chris Froome would have burst onto the scene much earlier than when he in fact did.

Coupled with his Bilharzia he was very much inhibited in his first year at Sky, but gradually once he learnt the tricks of the trade he became the rider he is today.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on October 18, 2012, 02:19
I don't feel like reading..too many flipping words... so are you saying chris froome is cleanish?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 02:58
http://www.cycling4fans.de/index.php?id=4117 (http://www.cycling4fans.de/index.php?id=4117)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 04:43
here the thing re Froome

and I have read it somewhere  :-[

as part of his treatment it is a 6 week cycle at which you can not train , the according to froome you are just dead starting from the beginning.

He had a treatment cycle in feb/march of 2012 -
Quote
Doctors initially diagnosed mononucleosis, but the treatments failed. It was only after Froome underwent extensive blood screening following his switch to Sky in 2010 that the parasitic infection was caught and he was prescribed an eye-wateringly strong treatment, similar to chemotherapy



so if you know anyone who has has chemo it nearly kills them - 20 year olds move like 95 year old for months etc


this is where a major major red flag went up for me - How does a rider who goes through such treatment, 1 come back strong in 3 months in fact come back so strong that now they go from some talent to top 15 GT riders after the vuelta , start from nothing to be the strongest at the TDF.

then hold form until the 1 week of the Vuelta

Nope does do not do it for me, people get a small virus and are sh*t all year - or miss a week or 2 training and it takes months to return , froome goes through a chemo like treatment in the early season and world beater by July


 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on October 18, 2012, 06:52
ok - have finally read all of that.

And while I might buy that he had some talent and was hindered by lack of technical skills and good coaching ... I dont buy that it hindered him for 3 years.

He turned pro in 2007 you said - riding for a small SA team.  Many young guys with talent but no training or technical know how will find this pretty tough.  2008 he went to Barlow World ... first year as a NeoPro - ok

But in 2009, when he should have made the next step he did not.  Guys with talent but lacking in technical skills would have gained SOME skills in 2 years as a pro ... or will show glimpses of that talent.  A breakaway or two, small wins, those kinds of things.   Getting 5th in a TT or top 10 in minor races isnt really an indication of massive natural talent the kind you are talking about.

When he got to sky and got 'decent coaching' ... did he have this disease then?   I am a bit confused as to when he actually caught it.

And yeah - if it has held him back so incredibly severely, why the patches of great form?  All of 2011 he was crap, but managed to pull out of it enough to have a super-time at the Vuelta.  Then he was really bad and had to stop racing and have a break ... but back in time to be in tip top shape for the Dauphine and Tour.

Compare that to say Phil.  Phil had obviously a poor off-season.  Not doing the hard work he needed to, and suffered from a tooth infection early on in the season.  He was very average in the early season (Qatar, Tirreno) He was beaten by Jonathon Tiernan Locke in the Tour of Haut Var, very very ordinary at Omloop ...

By then he was training his little backside off ... trying desperately to be in shape in time for RVV.  He fell at MSR, and was ordinary and a few other races before eventually riding for GVA at RVV.  Yes - he rode for his domestique in the major race for him.  Because the 2 or 3 months of training weren't enough to get his form back.

He then started to improve, Brantse Pilj was ok (but not great), was 6th at Amstel Gold Race, 3rd at Fleche Wallone and out of the top 10 at LBL ....

So 3 months after trying desperately to improve ... he still was not in great shape - and that was from an actual training base,not 6 weeks off the bike.  At the Tour he was a little better again and was finally in reasonable shape by the Olympics - some 5 months after his toothache caused him issues.

It takes a LONG time to get back into form when you drop off, so I really dont beleive that Froome could have such treatment in February/March, and be back in form and shape by the Dauphine.  It just doesnt seem to gel for me.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Michelle on October 18, 2012, 13:06
I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment.  He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

Really... get your facts straight before making accusations like that... pathetic.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 13:21
Hi Michelle

got the quote from a newspaper

will look for the 6 week quote somewhere

Bt we were talking about the time off the bike in feb/march no one said anything about June  ;)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on October 18, 2012, 13:34
Hi Michelle, and welcome to Velorooms

Quick question since you seem to be confirming things for us - when did Chris actually contract bilharzia, and when was it diagnosed? 

cheers
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on October 18, 2012, 13:42
Very fair and reasoned information froome19... Chris is considered to have come from "nowhere" when he hasnt really..
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 13:44
I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment.  He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

Really... get your facts straight before making accusations like that... pathetic.

here is where the chemo thing can from

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/other-sports/parasitic-infection-almost-ended-meteoric-rise-of-cyclings-new-star-froome.18176466?_=6ad4da81a9d33b49db826f73ac38fbbc0ab3dfad (http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/other-sports/parasitic-infection-almost-ended-meteoric-rise-of-cyclings-new-star-froome.18176466?_=6ad4da81a9d33b49db826f73ac38fbbc0ab3dfad)

Quote
Doctors initially diagnosed mononucleosis, but the treatments failed. It was only after Froome underwent extensive blood screening following his switch to Sky in 2010 that the parasitic infection was caught and he was prescribed an eye-wateringly strong treatment, similar to chemotherapy.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 14:04
right Love a bit of Google me

Quote
Doctors initially thought the symptoms pointed toward mononucleosis, but treatments failed to resolve his ongoing problems that left him tired and powerless on the bike. It went largely undiagnosed until he underwent extensive blood screening with a switch to Sky in 2010.

Doctors discovered the rather obscure parasitic infection and quickly prescribed treatments that kill just about everything in the body, similar to chemotherapy.

“It’s a very strong pill. It basically kills everything in your system, and hopefully at the same time, kills the [infection],” Froome said. “It’s something that I have to try to get rid of it. You cannot train when you’re taking that.”

Froome was knocked out of service in March and began building up for the Tour.

“The treatment is pretty rough stuff,” he said. “I have had a bit of a slow start to the season. There was more than a week when I could not even touch the bike. I started picking it up in time to be ready for the Tour.”

Now that’s a true enemy within.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/tour-notebook-stage-15-froome-battles-parasite-media-cars-expelled_230162 (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/tour-notebook-stage-15-froome-battles-parasite-media-cars-expelled_230162)

so not 6 weeks sorry - but March but might be sh*t research or writing

So 2 chemo articles and 1 it kills everything in the system quote which is what Chemo does
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 14:54
Very fair and reasoned information froome19... Chris is considered to have come from "nowhere" when he hasnt really..

If people gave you a list of young riders in 07/08 who were most likely to win a GT within a next 5 years, where do you think they would have ranked Froome?

(early results often turn out to be misleading indicators of future abilities, but they are all we have to go on).
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Michelle on October 18, 2012, 15:04
I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo. 
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back.  He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly.  It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas. 
It's really not that strange or uncommon. 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on October 18, 2012, 15:12
I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo. 
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back.  He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly.  It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas. 
It's really not that strange or uncommon. 

the trouble is, the press report these things innacurately, say its like chemo, it gets re-reported, more people pick it up, and you end up with a very different story to what was started with.

thanks for you clarification michelle, might help clear up some of the mis-information the press bandy around.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 18, 2012, 15:14
the trouble is, the press report these things innacurately, say its like chemo, it gets re-reported, more people pick it up, and you end up with a very different story to what was started with.

Exactly we can only go on what is reported in the press.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on October 18, 2012, 15:19
So Chris Froome is cleanish and should not be suspected?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on October 18, 2012, 15:24
So Chris Froome is cleanish and should not be suspected?

Which is cleaner, Froome cleanish or Hesjedal cleanish?

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on October 18, 2012, 16:56
In recognition of his work dragging the yellow jersey up the mountains, Froome-Dog gets his own smiley :froomedog
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Slow Rider on October 18, 2012, 18:30
Thank you Froome19, I needed some optimism in this place instead of the same old cynical sh*t.

I'm still not sure wether I believe Froome is clean, but this does sound like a good explanation for his relative lack of results early in his career. Perhaps he should indeed get the benefit of the doubt for now. At least for long enough for him to make the next Tour a nice battle.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on October 19, 2012, 00:56
yep - agree with Slow Rider.

I am still not overly convinced, but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I dont like condemning people purely on results, and that is all we have on Froome ...

(:froomedog  that is so cute)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on October 22, 2012, 11:46
and in the spirit of giving himhte benefit of the doubt, his CN interview was better than many others have managed

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-looking-to-lead-sky-in-2013-tour-de-france)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on October 25, 2012, 01:07
I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo. 
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back.  He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly.  It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas. 
It's really not that strange or uncommon.

I know several people who have had Bilharzia and can hide in your body for ages without knowing it. Most people i know reckon they got it from Lake Malawi where everyone tells you not to swim but it is hot and it looks so tempting. But can back up the fact that often people do not know they have it till they suddenly start peeing blood months later and like other diseases it can come back at any point in the future.

I was also told you got it from trying to take a sneaky pee in the water when no one is looking, so you should probably make sure you are not swimming downstream of him too often.....

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on October 25, 2012, 12:42
Dave good to see you again

a point to your tweet,

No one argued with Michelle what I did was point out what I had read in the press and I hope Michelle or Chris got in contact with the press to set them straight.

There is a huge difference but maybe it is hard for you to see that.   
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on November 05, 2012, 11:54
well flip me sideways

after Michelle ie Mrs Dog comes on here to say

I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment.  He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

Really... get your facts straight before making accusations like that... pathetic.

and

I'll repeat what I said before... it is NOT like chemo. 
If you're that interested, the medication is a strong anti-parisitic called Prazitel.
He took it at the end of March after Criterium International, he had also taken two courses of praziquantel in the past but the parasites kept coming back.  He was diagnosed back in 2010 if I remember correctly.  It's difficult to say when it was contracted.
It's fairly common for kids to pick it up in Africa playing in dams & rivers and usually goes undetected for years.
Growing up in South Africa myself, we were taught about it in primary school & told to avoid certain areas. 
It's really not that strange or uncommon. 


after I quotes articles stating a chemo like treatment

and now after all of this we get this

Quote
Froome’s first big professional win came in last year’s Vuelta when he won stage seventeen. He says the reason for his late blossoming could be due to a disease called billharzia.

“It's a worm parasite that eats your red blood cells. Forty percent of the Kenyan population is infected by it. You receive it through contact with contaminated water," said Froome.

“I was at my brother's wedding in Kenya in late 2010 when the International Cycling Union (UCI) checked my blood passport. I immediately asked for all parameters when they discovered that I suffered from the disease. That was the reason why I sometimes was abnormally tired and was just average with Team Barloworld and my first year at Sky. These tiny worms affect your whole organism.

“I've been receiving treatment for two years now. For the first half of the year I take heavy medication to suppress the disease, but when you are diagnosed with bilharzia you never lose it,” he said.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13219/Froome-reiterates-Tour-de-France-ambitions.aspx#ixzz2BLeqMShQ (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13219/Froome-reiterates-Tour-de-France-ambitions.aspx#ixzz2BLeqMShQ)

WTF

6 months - 6-7 days - Chemo  :fp
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on November 05, 2012, 12:10
Thank you Froome19, I needed some optimism in this place instead of the same old cynical sh*t.



The same old cynical sh!t comes from watching riders racing doped on teams run by ex doping DS who employ doping Doctors while giving brown bags to the federation doing the anti-doping and using licence money to sue whistle blowers.


Maybe Michelle could explain what riders could do to convince cycling fans that the rider's performances are clean?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 05, 2012, 17:56
well flip me sideways

after Michelle ie Mrs Dog comes on here to say

and


after I quotes articles stating a chemo like treatment

and now after all of this we get this

WTF

6 months - 6-7 days - Chemo  :fp
Well most likely  they are talking about different things, I don't have a clue about this stuff but maybe he is reffering to the praziquantel or whatever that is..



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on November 06, 2012, 00:33
I am ok with the idea that its not actually that hard ... that the meds are a short course taken a couple of times during the first half of the year.

But when Froome himself talks about it like that - it does make it sound much harsher.   

And even if the meds are not that bad ... to get through them, start from scratch training again and get back to peak in order to contend not 1 but 2 endurance bike races in a row ...


Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 00:57
Hi froomey, thanks for the background on Froome, very informative :-) I enjoyed that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 06, 2012, 19:33
Thanks K..

Cound in a piece for Procycling said that:

Quote
After being tested for Bilharzia in March they found it was still positive. He then started the medication in April, which took him off the bike for another week. This was obviously critical training time ahead of the Tour. At that point Chris had serious doubts as to whether he'd be ready to even ride

Seems to be saying the same thing she has said on here.
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 19:53
Yeah, I reckon she knows what she's talking about? I think it's quite cool that she popped in to VR to give feedback in the 1st place, even if she was a bit p-d off :-) Plus, she cares about her dude - I was with a cyclist for 3 years - you get emotional about your guy :-D Anyway, more info for us at the end of the day, which is the whole point of forumming, riiiiiight??
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 19:56
Oh and I can confirm that Bilharzia is common here - as a kid my dad would also warn us against dipping in 'still-standing' water - it's a common thing to watch out for in SA.
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 19:58
The same old cynical sh!t comes from watching riders racing doped on teams run by ex doping DS...

It's a major bummer for sure.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 06, 2012, 20:01
Indeed once one holiday in SA we used to go swimming everyday in a lake which our villas backed out onto.

Must have spent half the holiday there ignoring the very blatant signs which told us to stay out due to Bilharzia. Eventually this official on the very last day came and told us to keep out or else.. :fp

Don't feel all that strange though :D
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 20:18
Must have spent half the holiday there ignoring the very blatant signs which told us to stay out due to Bilharzia.

I like your style :-)
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 06, 2012, 20:20
Don't feel all that strange though :D

As for.. we're still voting on that one (:-D
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 14, 2012, 19:05
"@chrisfroome: My official & only facebook profile http://t.co/P3gw837A"
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: theHog on November 25, 2012, 15:03
Yeah, I reckon she knows what she's talking about? I think it's quite cool that she popped in to VR to give feedback in the 1st place, even if she was a bit p-d off :-) Plus, she cares about her dude - I was with a cyclist for 3 years - you get emotional about your guy :-D Anyway, more info for us at the end of the day, which is the whole point of forumming, riiiiiight??

She's protecting the cashcow.

To clear up one matter. The Giro delle Regioni is an U23 race. Winning 1 stage does not equate to future Tour winner.

In my mind Froome is clearly doping. His rise is "not normal".

Period.
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 25, 2012, 17:00
She's protecting the cashcow.

To clear up one matter. The Giro delle Regioni is an U23 race. Winning 1 stage does not equate to future Tour winner.

In my mind Froome is clearly doping. His rise is "not normal".

Period.

Ah I see. The hectic thing - and which I am really struggling to come to terms with - is that they probably 'all' do it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 25, 2012, 17:11
I would not say they "probably" all do it.
From what we have seen doping in the peloton has been reduced since the Lance days.

Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 25, 2012, 17:21
I dunno, Froome, I've been doing some reading re micro doping & how the tests just don't pick it up. But I would love to think it wasn't so. How will we ever know? Are the performance stats much lower than in the past (speed of climbs, stage finishes, that sort of thing) to show some empirical evidence?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 25, 2012, 17:38
I dunno, Froome, I've been doing some reading re micro doping & how the tests just don't pick it up. But I would love to think it wasn't so. How will we ever know? Are the performance stats much lower than in the past (speed of climbs, stage finishes, that sort of thing) to show some empirical evidence?
Certainly even people who say the entire peloton is doping nevertheless would say they are doping at much lesser levels, yet levels which gain an advantage.

Exactly we can only use our own discretion regarding this and for that we can only really look at things like who tests positive and what riders say to come to our own conclusion.
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 25, 2012, 18:08
Yeah, I guess only time will tell, hey?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: theHog on November 25, 2012, 19:58
I dunno, Froome, I've been doing some reading re micro doping & how the tests just don't pick it up. But I would love to think it wasn't so. How will we ever know? Are the performance stats much lower than in the past (speed of climbs, stage finishes, that sort of thing) to show some empirical evidence?

Froome was out almost half the season. He was 10 minutes off the back at Tour de Romandie.

All of the sudden at the Tour he is out TT'ing Cancellera and climbing so fast he has time to turn around, soft pedal, then gesture to the yellow jersey!

Thats's 'not normal".

The guy went to alien levels at the Tour.

I'm sorry. Doesn't matter who you are, you cannot make those sort of gains in such small space of time.

Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 26, 2012, 00:18
Thats's 'not normal".

The guy went to alien levels at the Tour.

I'm sorry. Doesn't matter who you are, you cannot make those sort of gains in such small space of time.

Thanks, that is serious good for thought.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Slow Rider on November 26, 2012, 07:53
Froome was out almost half the season. He was 10 minutes off the back at Tour de Romandie.

All of the sudden at the Tour he is out TT'ing Cancellera and climbing so fast he has time to turn around, soft pedal, then gesture to the yellow jersey!

Thats's 'not normal".

The guy went to alien levels at the Tour.

I'm sorry. Doesn't matter who you are, you cannot make those sort of gains in such small space of time.

So essentially, you're just ignoring every rational argument in this topic and are completely convinced Froome must be a malicious doper because you feel his rise to the top was 'not normal'?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on November 26, 2012, 08:20
malicious?
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 26, 2012, 17:42
Ah I see. Although, a lot of people say I am naive for thinking that any of the pros are clean...
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 26, 2012, 17:42
Thinking? I guess it's more like hoping...
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: theHog on November 26, 2012, 23:13
The Hog uses a bigger deflector shield than the Starship Enterprise.
 He plays fast and loose with the truth.
 I notice that here he is still claiming the USA as his base, but on CN came clean that he's UK.
These two posts are his copy and paste efforts from over there, before he ran into a bit of flak, last night.

No I grew up in the UK and live in the US.

That much is clear in all my posts.

Sorry to disappoint.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: theHog on November 26, 2012, 23:31
So essentially, you're just ignoring every rational argument in this topic and are completely convinced Froome must be a malicious doper because you feel his rise to the top was 'not normal'?

What rational arguments? I've not seen any.

If you have some please let us know.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Slow Rider on November 27, 2012, 10:24
What rational arguments? I've not seen any.

If you have some please let us know.

Thought we needed a separate thread and intro for Froome..  :D

(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article7939544.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/66-froome-getty.jpg)
Even subsequent to clearing up the matter of why Sky were capable of performing to such high levels there is still the dilemma of Chris Froome. His rise to the top was not only unprecedented, but in fact it was completely out of the blue and many people would say that there was not even so much as the slightest indication of his talent prior to the 2011 Vuelta.

Logically this would be a clear and very blatant sign as to possible doping; the simple explanation for the ridiculous leap would be due to doping. It was the factor which gave him the ability to perform beyond what he was previously capable of and it has been the cause of his ascension to one of the most highly rated Grand Tour riders who are currently racing in the modern peloton.

But in my opinion and from what I have read and heard about the rider, it seems as if his startling rise to the very summit of Grand Tour racing may not have been all that surprising. Personally I believe that he was hindered by a variety of factors, but behind all his struggles he encountered there was in fact a very talented cyclists waiting for the opportunity to prove his talent.



Froome was born in Nairobi to English parents, without going into unnecessary detail it should be mentioned that he started off racing BMX bikes and was racing by the age of 13, he then moved to South Africa at the age of 14.

It was in fact only once he was living in South Africa that he started to turn his attention to road cycling, but the infrastructure was not ideal and it would prove to be costly. Prior to his arrival in South Africa he had never even ridden a road bike, only BMX and Mountain bikes.

He was coached by David Kinjah who had competed to a decent level himself, but Froome did not receive anywhere close to the training expertise and coaching techniques that many of his rivals would have at similar ages.

It was only then at the age of 22 that Froome became pro, once again considering his talent he should have become pro earlier but it was obvious that he had been restricted by the limited resources that were available to him

Froome's first team was Team Konica Minolta and they were a South African team with limited resources as expected. In his first season he did relatively well a win at the Tour of Japan was followed by a number of placings around the globe as his team charted unprecedented territory.

It was at the Giro delle Regioni where Froome really started to show potential and in retrospect his perfomances were quite remarkable for a rider who was competing with such a distinct disadvantage due to his lack of skills and professional training. He won the primary mountain stage ahead of riders who have now become household names, the likes of Tour de France stage winner Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema who came 4th at the Vuelta 2011 amonst others.

This has been Froome's first real crack at proper European racing and he had taken to it amazingly well considering his limiting circumstances. In fact Froome would have dominated the race if not for his chain braking in the closing meters of the other major stage.

Yet even considering the amazing perfomance Froome has put in, it was not enough. He had been racing for the WCC (World Cycling Centre Team) whilst in Europe and the coach of the team Michael Theze said of Froome that...

It is obvious to us in retrospect that Froome was still far behind the other riders when it came to the technical skills required to race at the highest level and this placed him at a significant disadvantage.

Then in 2008 Froome was eventually snapped up by Barloworld and was therefore under the direction of their Italian manager Claudio Corti, now the manager of Farnese Vini. As would be expected of any neo-pro - no matter their talent - who was only starting out in their career, the season was to be used merely as an eye opener for Froome and for him to truly adjust to the European style of racing.

Yet even so Froome was impressive he finished in the Top 10 in a number of minor races and he safely finished a number of high profile classics such as Liege Bastogne Liege and La Fleche Wallone. His most impressive result though was his 5th place finish in a TT at the Vuelta asturias where he managed to finish a mere 26 seconds behind Samuel Sanchez the soon to be Olympic champion.

Froome was certainly showing signs of his potential. He was then given the opportunity to ride his first Grand Tour - the Tour de France and he battled through it, and then managing to eventually finish 14th on the final stage which was a TT.

If there was ever a test of strength to determine whether Froome had the potential to become a future Grand Tour contender it was this. Without the proper training or techniques and not being used to the rigours of a 3 week race, Froome nevertheless posted what would be considered a magnificent result for any neo-pro. Indeed this had already been proven a few days earlier when he had been climbing with the lead group for the majority of the Alpe d'huez climb.

2009 was a year where Froome seemed not to have made much improvement.

He came 6th in a Giro stage amonst other decent yet not spectacular results.
This was not the progression of an extremely talented rider who would go on to dominate the world of cycling, but rather of a mediocre rider who would remain inconspicuous amongst the pro ranks.





2009 should have been the year when Froome started to excel, but instead it turned out to be a year where he displayed nothing of any true substance. This has resulted in many people believing that Froome does not have the natural talent as his Tour rivals and that therefore the logical explanation for his current status in the sport is down to drugs.

This was what his team manage Claudio Corti had to say at the time. Corti claimed that Froome whom he dubbed his “white Kenyan” would

Clearly Corti had seen what Froome was capable of and believed that he was indeed innately capable. He just was not racing at the level he was capable of racing at, because of the reason stated above, that he was hindered by his lack of technical prowess.

Then Froome joined Sky and his career would be totally altered. Sky had just started up and it took time for him to adjust. The whole set up was new to Froome and from what I have seen and heard it seems to be that Froome was on the outskirts of this setup. The Sky team were not as methodical then with all their riders as they are now and considering how Froome was still considered to be a peripheral member of the squad and therefore not treated with the same respect as riders like Wiggins, his technical skills were still rather poor and this still hindered him. But even more than that the defining reason for his poor reasons in 2010, which were headlined by a Tour de Haut var 9th place, was due to the fact that on Holiday in Kenya he had contracted the disease of Bilharzia.
Yet the Sky management team had in fact noticed his potential and had in fact described him as
When Froome joined the team back in early 2010.

This is another indication of people who believed in Froome and that he was capable, but just had to improve his technical skills. And of course get over his Bilharzia.

Yet Bilharzia is an infection by parasites who lay eggs deep within the human body and therefore it is very difficult to get rid off.

Entering into the 2011 season Froome had two objectives if was to fulfil his potential. One was to get rid of the Bilharzia and the other was to increase his technical skills.

Luckily for him Bobby Julich had just arrived at Sky and he was assigned to Froome for the 2011 season. This was the first time that Froome had had the opportunity to work with a coach of Julich’s experience and calibre one to one and immediately Julich noted his riders potential.

Yet it soon became apparent to Julich as to the reason why Froome had underperformed so badly over the past 2 years..

I do not believe there is much better proof than that. It was obvious once again here that Froome had been hindered by his lack of education when it came to how to ride a bike.

Likewise Richard Moore commented on Froome’s website that:

Once again the reference to the way in which Froome rode his bike as being “all over”,  clearly highlights his deficiencies at the time.

And finally he was starting to get rid of the parasite disease which had bugged him so much. Indeed he was still adapting and learning with :Julich though and his performances were gradually improving as a result.  He came 8th  on a Romandie mountain stage. And top 10s at the Tour de Suisse and Tour of Luxembourg. It was not much granted, but it was clearly signs that he had finally managed to overcome his technical difficulties and was shaking off the effects of the Bilharzia. And of course the rest is very much a part of history.


In conclusion I believe it was always evident that Froome had the potential to become a future Tour de France podium finished.

Indeed his results in his 2007 season spoke volumes for his capabilities, yet when he turned pro it was obvious he could not continue to match those riders he had previously beaten unless he could improve his technical skills. Even if people do not believe his claim of having Bilharzia ,and I am in very little doubt myself at to its validity, it would still be safe to say that he was hindered by his lack of technical skills.

It is logical to assume that without those hindrances Chris Froome would have burst onto the scene much earlier than when he in fact did.

Coupled with his Bilharzia he was very much inhibited in his first year at Sky, but gradually once he learnt the tricks of the trade he became the rider he is today.


..
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on November 27, 2012, 14:52
:admin

Just a reminder guys, can we leave other forums at the door. What happens elsewhere doesnt get carried over here, if it does the mods will get upset.

Thats the one warning, applies to all. Ta. :D

Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 27, 2012, 18:23
"@UCI_Overlord: Brailsford gives early indications of @chrisfroome Tour captaincy http://t.co/1EyWBgaK in a @rapharacing kit no less. link via @dexradio"
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on November 27, 2012, 18:52
No worries, but for next time probably best to have it in the Pro racing section as this thread is in dark side
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on November 27, 2012, 20:37
No worries, but for next time probably best to have it in the Pro racing section as this thread is in dark side

Oh yeah, true, just noticed again :-) thanks (this was meant for me?)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on December 03, 2012, 11:19
Quote
“I had a two week treatment in April last year, and have since been clear of the parasite,” he confirmed. “I have it checked every six months to make sure it hasn't returned.”
Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13422/Two-clear-targets-for-Chris-Froome-in-2013.aspx#ixzz2DzEzl0x7 (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13422/Two-clear-targets-for-Chris-Froome-in-2013.aspx#ixzz2DzEzl0x7)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on March 13, 2013, 17:59
This is what JV had to say on the Chris Froome matter. Which basically matches up exactly with what I wrote in the OP of this thread  :cheesy

Quote
Yeah, in 2011 i wanted to sign Froome. I gave him an offer a few days before the Vuelta. I knew he produced massive numbers in testing, but wasn't converting it onto the road because he has poor bike handling and because he had major issues with recovery due to some parasite issues he's struggled with.

But, yes, Ive known Froome was talented for a while. Just very rough. he still is. Not terribly smooth in the peloton, still has relapses of the parasite issue. But he's a massive motor.

Of course it could all just be coincidental, but I just don't see how people can say Chris Froome "came from nowhere".
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on March 13, 2013, 18:06
This is what JV had to say on the Chris Froome matter. Which basically matches up exactly with what I wrote in the OP of this thread  :cheesy

Of course it could all just be coincidental, but I just don't see how people can say Chris Froome "came from nowhere".

I take it with a pinch of salt. But hey no surprise, right?

JV has nailed his colours to Sky being clean.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on March 13, 2013, 18:11
I take it with a pinch of salt. But hey no surprise, right?

JV has nailed his colours to Sky being clean.
Still. Personally I don't think he is making the whole Froome thing up.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on March 13, 2013, 20:53
Still. Personally I don't think he is making the whole Froome thing up.

JV is very good at giving some hints at what he says knows and leaving people wanting more. Whether he knows or not is never confirmed. JV plays both sides of the fence as it suits him.

He does this with great skill to avoid the UCI making life very hard for Garmin.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on June 12, 2013, 10:32
A quote which Tuart posted in the Chris Froome thread and I thought it really eye opening:

Quote
"One moment, during the Alpe d'Huez stage, Corti called me back to the car to get more gels. I said, 'No, no. I am fine.' I just had one gel in my pocket. About four kilometres into Alpe d'Huez I blew completely and lost a hell of a lot of time. That hit home how important energy is, that showed me a lesson. He said, 'Why did you not come back? You needed about 10 gels, not one!'"
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 11:08
now all in all on the surface pretty meaningless bike pure removing froome from their websitr, but in this day and age and with the I am clean , nothing to hide interviews

why then not be open.

it follows the sky policy of being all up front and then shutting up shop when it counts

http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/ (http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on June 25, 2013, 11:12
More fuel for those who say Froome is all jacked up.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 11:22
More fuel for those who say Froome is all jacked up.

agreed but if you are not doping then show the world after the tour , who gives 2 sh*ts if you win , or podium every other person riding in the heads of state know what watts they were laying down etc - so you are not hiding important information from your competitors .

new generation my ass

before anyone says anything, Froome joined or agree to join bike pure a long time ago and then has been in the media doing his I am clean bit , transparency might go along way .

sure the number crunching folks will claim this and that , but it is bullsh*t junk science to say x watts = doping   
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on June 25, 2013, 11:23
now all in all on the surface pretty meaningless bike pure removing froome from their websitr, but in this day and age and with the I am clean , nothing to hide interviews

why then not be open.

it follows the sky policy of being all up front and then shutting up shop when it counts

http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/ (http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/)
It is just another ingredient being thrown into the casserole dish.
Team Sky, and especially, Chris Froome are going to be put under massive pressure at this years Tour by the journalists for lack of transparency.
I expect people to have massive digs because they are not MPCC members - and what is the team policy on cortisone? who has TUE's?
I also expect the questions raised by Antoine Vayer has not been answered and will be asked time and time again - in real time this year with every climb examined.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on June 25, 2013, 11:28
agreed but if you are not doping then show the world after the tour
Yes, that exactly. Not publishing during the race - fair enough. But afterwards, there's no good reason not to publish the data.
Let me mention at this point that #mtn2013 released Ciolek's power data for Milano-San Remo. ;)

sure the number crunching folks will claim this and that , but it is bullsh*t junk science to say x watts = doping
I agree, again. 6 watts/kg is an arbitrary number without any scientific foundation except "LeMond never performed more".
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on June 25, 2013, 11:37
A quote which Tuart posted in the Chris Froome thread and I thought it really eye opening:

Why on earth would that be eye opening?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on June 25, 2013, 13:23
agreed but if you are not doping then show the world after the tour , who gives 2 sh*ts if you win , or podium every other person riding in the heads of state know what watts they were laying down etc - so you are not hiding important information from your competitors .

new generation my ass

before anyone says anything, Froome joined or agree to join bike pure a long time ago and then has been in the media doing his I am clean bit , transparency might go along way .

sure the number crunching folks will claim this and that , but it is bullsh*t junk science to say x watts = doping
And conversely if you are doping then why not be more communicative with an organisation such as BikePro? I don't think it takes much to keep them happy. Either way I don't think it says much but rather only confirms the perception and vision of Sky as withdrawn and very insular.

In terms of the number crunching folks that group can cause unnecessary trouble. There was recently a whole magazine about it where Froome was condemned, I would think Sky would be happier just to leave them without any ammunition whatsoever.

Post Merge: June 25, 2013, 13:23
Why on earth would that be eye opening?
Because it shows just how clueless Froome was then.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 13:26
And conversely if you are doping then why not be more communicative with an organisation such as BikePro? I don't think it takes much to keep them happy. Either way I don't think it says much but rather only confirms the perception and vision of Sky as withdrawn and very insular.

In terms of the number crunching folks that group can cause unnecessary trouble. There was recently a whole magazine about it where Froome was condemned, I would think Sky would be happier just to leave them without any ammunition whatsoever.


maybe , but the folks will produce numbers anyway , so not sure it is relevant
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on June 25, 2013, 13:34
maybe , but the folks will produce numbers anyway , so not sure it is relevant
But numbers certified by the team have more standing.

But I get your point it is a possibility, I guess once again it is likely all part of Sky's less than being transparent parcel..
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 13:36
But numbers certified by the team have more standing.

But I get your point it is a possibility, I guess once again it is likely all part of Sky's less than being transparent parcel..

agreed as I said in my 1st post
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 25, 2013, 13:50
Eagerly awaiting Van Garderen and Roche's data..........

And eagerly awaiting the outrage if it isn't published............
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 13:54
Eagerly awaiting Van Garderen and Roche's data..........

one better Porte - seems a great publicity stunt 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 25, 2013, 13:56
Oooh Marianne Vos data......... she's not dominated at all

Bikepure, what is it? Never had any weightage in the pro Froome 'clean' argument and never had any weightage against any rider clean argument. And I'm a believer that Froome's not clear.

He got a nice lot of views on the site today.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 14:02
fwiw Sky and Fran Millar will be putting some sort of response on their site
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 15:55
Ok so tweeted with Michelle








 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 15:59
and here is where is gets interesting


which is not what the letter implied - it indicated tour only



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on June 25, 2013, 16:01
Haha Mish is kinda crazy - what would bikepure do with the info, sell it to the highest bidder?! :rolleye
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 16:03
no but she has a point racing data way way different to training data
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on June 25, 2013, 16:04
no but she has a point racing data way way different to training data

So? All data is important.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on June 25, 2013, 16:15
Wow MC seems to be peeed off :rolleye
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 25, 2013, 16:16
General idea means little, pooling data from other teams will involve semantics and tiny details.
So? All data is important.
How about COntador's teammate's data or how about USA's best road prospect? Is it the act that's being bashed or the team?

http://bikepure.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Bike-Pure-Certification-2012.pdf
how about page 13

FWIW- I think he's as suspicious as, not the whole team, but him yes.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on June 25, 2013, 16:24
ram you are not accusing alberto right :yuush
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 25, 2013, 16:26
Definitely not. I don't think it is a prerogative of any team to release training data to a third party and finding the outrage, from both sides, highly amusing.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on June 25, 2013, 16:36
well, I guess this is between froome and bikepure rather than anything else but are we thus to believe that rui costa will / has handed over all his numbers? strange timing but I guess bikepure wants a quieter tour. this really has been a day for splitting hairs.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 25, 2013, 16:47
well, I guess this is between froome and bikepure rather than anything else but are we thus to believe that rui costa will / has handed over all his numbers? strange timing but I guess bikepure wants a quieter tour. this really has been a day for splitting hairs.
"we are in negotiations with some riders but would prefer GT podiums produce data in the interests of transparency."

That appears a direct parallel to a non denial denial. My guess? No, he's not gone for anyone yet as 'some riders' could vary from Mitch Fay Lovelock to Dan Martin.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 25, 2013, 17:17
"we are in negotiations with some riders but would prefer GT podiums produce data in the interests of transparency."

That appears a direct parallel to a non denial denial. My guess? No, he's not gone for anyone yet as 'some riders' could vary from Mitch Fay Lovelock to Dan Martin.

it seems that it is Froome based - so odd all or none should be the way

and the letter said 3 weeks tours but they wanted training data and tours , so some very fancy foot work by bike pure - result as Ram said = increased hits
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on June 25, 2013, 23:06
Seems like Bike Pure is now back tracking slightly on this having been questioned on why only Froome

they are saying that is was a coincidence that two things happened at once

they asked for riders to provide data. Froome said no.

they asked Froome if he still wanted to be linked to Bike Pure. he did not reply. so they removed his profile. just happens it happened at same time as they mentioned he would not provide data and just before tour

it is crap like this that just makes me angry, at least it seems most people are seeing this as what it is

if they are asking riders for data then why not remove every single rider on the site until they provide that data
have they confirmed with every other rider that they still want to be linked with the site

we have seen this before where Wiggins offered to release data and Sky said no. we all know the reason is that people will read anything into anything. releasing the data will prove nothing and is bound to release a number of amateur scientists that will find some 'proof' of cheating in it somewhere. there is no winning.

Obviously the answer is an independent party that could view that data and certify riders in some way. That would be a massive task and require a huge amount of money. the compromise is the blood passport.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on June 25, 2013, 23:29
Awesome idea. If you're in you're all in if not you're out.

Now as much as I don't like Froome, would this be happening if he wasn't a contender for the Tour de France, I highly doubt it.

of course not. it is that traditional pre tour week when everyone is ready to go and there is not any racing to watch yet

so lets make some sh*t up

i on the other hand need to quickly make some stuff up on Jelajah before it starts today
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 26, 2013, 07:10
Just burn some Indonesian forests and Jelajah done. They may hold city criteriums if it doesn't clear, at least that's what the MNCF dep. chief said a few days ago.

It's funny bikepure. They started with this pledge, and it's not too visible on their publishing anymore-

Quote
The Pledge not to cheat, is not between the rider and Bike Pure - But the between rider and his friends, family, fans and team mates.  It is the choice to ride clean and with Honor.

The only place that is visible atm is here (http://bikepure.org/join-us/pro-rider/) and here (http://bikepure.org/riders-and-teams/pro-riders/).

Somewhere down the line, and they used to hand out financial details to those who requested earlier (quite a while ago now), they were operating at a loss (and a loan from one of the trust's founders, I think) and the 5 quid wristbands were not feasible. So what happens? A wristband now costs 250 quid of which a massive 5% goes to anti doping.

Also ironic is the list of teams the riders represent in the second link, while Downing and Dowsett are listed in their current lot, I see a lot of HTC, Fly V Australia, and Jayco teams there.

But the best has to be the website claiming it's a pledge to anti doping having a rider who got caught foul of an anti doping violation endorsing them within an hour of this non event and featuring on a page of their brochure.

Of course the crusty turd CCN group would never help in keeping anything real. So it became a pledge to bikepure and not its original aim. Person with a website has his head get too big for what he is......... The dot-com bubble was still far more entertaining.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 26, 2013, 07:16
It was a bit of fun stirring the sh*t yesterday.

Michelle was a bit peeed, bikepure never responded to me but a classic headline grab. Froome gets stress but Porte not.

Was funny seeing a lot of old kits though ram

The yellow and blue ag2r kit was cool.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on June 26, 2013, 07:23
and then they thought brown shorts was a good idea.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on June 26, 2013, 08:29
cmon - poo brown is a great look for shorts.   Isnt it?    :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on June 26, 2013, 08:32
cmon - poo brown is a great look for shorts.   Isnt it?    :D

My son is big on it  :rolleye
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on June 26, 2013, 22:26
Froome just said in a radio5 interview that he has zero TUE's.

There was another funny story about his lack of bike handling skills from Alex Dowsett when Froome was leading out a sprint train going far too fast into a roundabout and not realising they needed to do a 360 degree and instead went straight ahead.

Poor old Froome is going to be attacked on every downhill.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on June 27, 2013, 00:00
Just burn some Indonesian forests and Jelajah done. They may hold city criteriums if it doesn't clear, at least that's what the MNCF dep. chief said a few days ago.

It's funny bikepure. They started with this pledge, and it's not too visible on their publishing anymore-

The only place that is visible atm is here (http://bikepure.org/join-us/pro-rider/) and here (http://bikepure.org/riders-and-teams/pro-riders/).

Somewhere down the line, and they used to hand out financial details to those who requested earlier (quite a while ago now), they were operating at a loss (and a loan from one of the trust's founders, I think) and the 5 quid wristbands were not feasible. So what happens? A wristband now costs 250 quid of which a massive 5% goes to anti doping.

Also ironic is the list of teams the riders represent in the second link, while Downing and Dowsett are listed in their current lot, I see a lot of HTC, Fly V Australia, and Jayco teams there.

But the best has to be the website claiming it's a pledge to anti doping having a rider who got caught foul of an anti doping violation endorsing them within an hour of this non event and featuring on a page of their brochure.

Of course the crusty turd CCN group would never help in keeping anything real. So it became a pledge to bikepure and not its original aim. Person with a website has his head get too big for what he is......... The dot-com bubble was still far more entertaining.

As one rider on twitter pointed out the whole issue with this is riders that are cheating are already lying to everyone that matters. so buying a Blue wrist band and making some fake promise is not exactly a massive step further

signing up to massive punitive costs if they get caught and various other things is a lot more important in my book
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 06, 2013, 12:21
some serious BS from Brailsford.......

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/qa-brailsford-on-why-froome-wont-release-power-data_293771

the absolute peach is this

Quote
At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.

Must be dining out with Bruyneel in London too much......

Next it will be, "We might as well win..."

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 07, 2013, 02:06



(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Chris+Froome+British+Cycling+Portrait+Session+a1kA1h2LM71x.jpg)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/b92db9c95602ff5ba774d1d1969302a9/tumblr_mi7pso1f5Q1qacyk6o1_500.jpg)

yoicks

Post Merge: July 07, 2013, 02:10
he's morphed into old grampa froome
 :bouaaaaah :ohno:  :yarr
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 07, 2013, 03:37
some serious BS from Brailsford.......

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/qa-brailsford-on-why-froome-wont-release-power-data_293771

the absolute peach is this

Must be dining out with Bruyneel in London too much......

Next it will be, "We might as well win..."
Science or spot analyzed this comment and said their estimate is 20-30 years.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 07, 2013, 11:09
Science or spot analyzed this comment and said their estimate is 20-30 years.

Brailsford's estimate was 24hours.........................
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 07, 2013, 11:48
some serious BS from Brailsford.......

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/qa-brailsford-on-why-froome-wont-release-power-data_293771

the absolute peach is this
At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.

You need to know Brailsford to understand quite how much fun he is getting from making statements like that.  He knows exactly what he is saying and the audience he wants to provoke.  A Sky 'bot will analyse the Clinic's response and Fran and Dave will later laugh their heads off over a glass of wine.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 07, 2013, 12:47
Its like watching a pussy cat toy with a mouse
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 07, 2013, 13:23
You need to know Brailsford to understand quite how much fun he is getting from making statements like that.  He knows exactly what he is saying and the audience he wants to provoke.  A Sky 'bot will analyse the Clinic's response and Fran and Dave will later laugh their heads off over a glass of wine.

Nope they will send more obfuscaters in to try and silence the bone idle w**nkers who can see straight through their BS.

They are laughing so hard they have Fran's Bro saying how clean they are........
Title: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 10:41
I wonder if people would judge other riders so harshly if they actually got to hear what they had to say, and understood their language? I mean....what is Valverde's view of doping in the peloton? What is Contador's?

I haven't heard them, nor would I understand them if I did.

I'm minded to view Wiggins a little more harshly than I did last year, purely because of the way Froome is conducting himself. Ie. calmer, more modest, less impetuous.

I don't know what all this stuff is about Froome accusing AC of doping. I heard an interview where he was asked to account for his performance against convicted dopers (the implication being AC/VLVDe) but he just batted it away saying it is for journalists to work it out. That isn't an accusation of doping, but if somebody (Florrie!) can provide a link where he did I'd be interested.

I think you have to accept that Froome might be doping, and judge his responses accordingly, but that also means you have to accept that he might not be doping and judge his answers accordingly as well.

If it is the latter, then you would have to respect the way he is approaching the endless doping questions.

Froome was asked, do you believe Contador when he says he never doped.

Froome answered. You shouldn't ask me. I don't know what he did and didn't do. He's had his ban right?  (and now comes the weird part, completely not in line with what he was saying before) I see there are riders who used to do things they can't do anymore. That tells me cycling has changed.

Journo asks, do you mean Contador?
Froome:I'll let you figure that out.


 :rolleye

note this was translated from english into dutch by a journo and from dutch into english by me. But I've seen it mentioned in several places.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 10, 2013, 10:46
Froome was asked, do you believe Contador when he says he never doped.

Froome answered. You shouldn't ask me. I don't know what he did and didn't do. He's had his ban right?  (and now comes the weird part, completely not in line with what he was saying before) I see there are riders who used to do things they can't do anymore. That tells me cycling has changed.

Journo asks, do you mean Contador?
Froome:I'll let you figure that out.


 :rolleye

note this was translated from english into dutch by a journo and from dutch into english by me. But I've seen it mentioned in several places.
You mean you don't like Froome because he's implied Contador might be clean now?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 10:49
You mean you don't like Froome because he's implied Contador might be clean now?

If you look at my post I don't like him for many reasons. One of them being him accusing Contador of doping in the past. You don't do such things when you respect a rival. Especially because Alberto has always been very friendly towards Froome, Froome has never really answered that but this is way worse. I kinda want Alberto to tell Froome to go flip himself right now.

But anyway, the moment Froome gets caught will be even sweeter now.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 10, 2013, 10:55
One of them being him accusing Contador of doping in the past. You don't do such things when you respect a rival.

If you respect your rivals surely you don't dope to beat them?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 10:56
@ Florrie

The question that was asked of Froome was massively loaded, no?

Besides, I thought we were all anti-omertà here? You can't have it both ways, criticising riders for hypocrisy and then criticising them for being honest.

Besides, is there anybody who believes AC didn't dope, and anybody that hasn't noticed that post doping ban (yes! He was banned for doping) he can't do what he did before?

Blinded by fangirlism?? :)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 11:02
@ Florrie

The question that was asked of Froome was massively loaded, no?

Besides, I thought we were all anti-omertà here? You can't have it both ways, criticising riders for hypocrisy and then criticising them for being honest.

Besides, is there anybody who believes AC didn't dope, and anybody that hasn't noticed that post doping ban (yes! He was banned for doping) he can't do what he did before?

Blinded by fangirlism?? :)

What :o_o

the question wasn't massively loaded, he could've just stopped at "He's had his ban right? " but he chose to add the accusation.

I am not anti-omerta. To be honest I don't give a flying flip about doping, with sky, it's as hitch said, it isn't what they do but that they do it in the name of clean cycling.

Yes he sucks right now. And yes maybe that's because he stopped doping. But Froome is in no place to publicly humiliate Alberto with speculation. He flames journos for speculating he might be doped. Yet he speculates Alberto might be a doper. Again, he thinks he's god and can do whatever he likes?

No I'm not blinded. And you are perfectly allowed to be happy with what froome said. I am also allowed to dislike Froome because of what he said. In my opinion it shows a complete lack of respect for someone who's always respected him and been friendly to him.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: myth1908 on July 10, 2013, 11:12
announcement made on CF's official facebook page (can't remember it word by word, but i remember the idea): we won't accept any comments about doping. those who will they will be banned, reported to facebook and their comments will be deleted.

i was actually banned and reported for saying: "i think your performance in stage 8 was out of the normal. i would't bet my money on your cleanness, but who knows?"

anyway, i heard that they deleted that announcement after many users were angry. i can't tell for sure, coz i'm banned :D

and i don't like CF simply because he's riding for team skynet, which i'm genetically designed not to like such teams.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 11:27
Is Prudhomme on about those sunglasses, too, or maybe "eyes" is the new code word for programme? :D

Don't take this the wrong way, flo, but I think you are seeing what you want to see.
Froome has plenty of faults, but the way he interviews certainly isn't one of them.
Wiggins comes across as arrogant; a bit of a dick, Froome certainly doesn't.
As for Porte, maybe you ought to start a: "Why I hate Porte thread"?

Mind you, I haven't seen anything of this interview where he speaks of Alberto.
Any chance of a link, please?
rest day press conference
http://sport.be.msn.com/nl/wielrennen/article.html?Article_ID=650015

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130708_00651885

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/froome-set-to-be-offered-better-protection-from-sky-teammates-as-he-bids-to-win-tour-de-france-1.391079

Froome would not be drawn on Contador's comment, other than saying: "there definitely do need to be questions asked about performances in the past."

I read the full interview in a belgian newspaper

Edit: I think froome comes across as a dick because of his comments on Alberto and his arrogance
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 11:33
Froome is damned whatever he does.

If he refuses to answer or tries to claim cycling was never dirty he's doomed for perpetuating omerta. If he accepts that cycling was dirty he will be critisced for the implications of that by people like you.

He has to say cycling is cleaner, because to not say that would implicate himself

................,..........

It doesn't matter that it is Froome, it would be anybody in yellow. If Contador was in yellow he would be asked difficult questions. For one, they would be in a language most here don't speak, and secondly he has an exceedingly poor record on speaking out about doping (for obvious reasons)


Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 11:39
Froome is damned whatever he does.

If he refuses to answer or tries to claim cycling was never dirty he's doomed for perpetuating omerta. If he accepts that cycling was dirty he will be critisced for the implications of that by people like you.

He has to say cycling is cleaner, because to not say that would implicate himself

................,..........

It doesn't matter that it is Froome, it would be anybody in yellow. If Contador was in yellow he would be asked difficult questions. For one, they would be in a language most here don't speak, and secondly he has an exceedingly poor record on speaking out about doping (for obvious reasons)

why was this a difficult question? He could've just answered with I don't know, but he chose to accuse Alberto so I feel I am allowed to hate him for that. It was a poor decision.

At least Alberto would never be such a big hypocrite to say everyone in the peloton used to be doping except for him.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 11:43
Well, of course, Froome didn't actually say that. You made it up  :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 11:44
Well, of course, Froome didn't actually say that. You made it up :)

Is this a joke. I hope so.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 11:49
No you really did make that up. Froome didn't say everyone in the peloton used to dope except him.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 11:50
No you really did make that up. Froome didn't say everyone in the peloton doped except him.

Oh thought you meant the Alberto comments :fp

He implied it though. He said he is able to win now because cycling is clean ergo everyone who used to beat him was doped.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 11:57
The implication is that clean people can now win because far fewer have an unfair advantage through doping.

Two points:

Regardless of whether he is right, what he describes is what we all want, no? Clean riders having a chance to win.

Secondly, everyone did dope.  You seem conflicted about this, do you want head-in-the_sand omertà or do you want people to be honest and acknowledge that everyone doped?

He is saying the things that were previously unsayable.

Only if he is exposed as a doper can we all condemn him as a hypocrit, but for now he is saying the right things from an anti-doping perspective
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 12:08
Okay we disagree, that's fine
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 12:17
Of course it's ok if we disagree. It is totally inconsequential.

I'm just not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with as I've outlined in my last post.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 12:35
Of course it's ok if we disagree. It is totally inconsequential.

I'm just not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with as I've outlined in my last post.

Let me make it more clear.

I disagree, Froome should not have accused Alberto of doping.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 12:38
Oh I see.

Thing is I don't see it as an accusation. More as a statement of fact. After all, Alberto was banned.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 10, 2013, 12:51
rest day press conference
http://sport.be.msn.com/nl/wielrennen/article.html?Article_ID=650015

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130708_00651885

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/froome-set-to-be-offered-better-protection-from-sky-teammates-as-he-bids-to-win-tour-de-france-1.391079

Froome would not be drawn on Contador's comment, other than saying: "there definitely do need to be questions asked about performances in the past."

I read the full interview in a belgian newspaper

Edit: I think froome comes across as a dick because of his comments on Alberto and his arrogance

 Thanks for the links. I will read what I can and dodgy google translate the rest! :embarrassed

Edit: Is this roughly the bone of contention?
Quote
Oddly Froome took himself out to Alberto Contador. The Spaniard was suspended two years, but cries out that he always rode clean. "I know enough about that case, but maybe you are wondering how it is that he no longer has the same level as before."

Also that Froome questions why Contador no longer seems able to perform at pre-ban levels?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 12:59
Oh I see.

Thing is I don't see it as an accusation. More as a statement of fact. After all, Alberto was banned.

It isn't a statement of fact. Alberto was officially banned for the substance in his body and CAS stated in the reasoned decision that a contaminated supplement was most likely the cause. Anyone without any insider's information can't be sure he doped. As long as Alberto maintains he's innocent and the courts don't convict him for deliberate doping, any comments about Alberto's history are based on belief and opinion, not on fact. So yes, it is an accusation.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 13:02
Thanks for the links. I will read what I can and dodgy google translate the rest! :embarrassed

Edit: Is this roughly the bone of contention?
Also that Froome questions why Contador no longer seems able to perform at pre-ban levels?

I don't know enough about the case to comment on it, but perhaps you should ask yourself why he's not at his old level anymore.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 10, 2013, 13:14
Let me make it more clear.

I disagree, Froome should not have accused Alberto of doping.

 I fully understand why you feel that Froome should not have hinted about Alberto's past indiscretions.
 There is also the hard line forum school of thought that believe that riders should be more forthcoming in their condemnation of the dark arts.
 
 For my part, I tend to lean towards your view, but obviously not for the same reasons.
 The Tour rest day is neither the time, nor the place for vague insinuations, regardless
of how baited the question might be.

 Best said out of competition and as unambiguously as possible.
( and expect to be called a hypocrite, when you do!)
 
 
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 13:41
It's ok for riders to accuse dopers of doping. So long as they are consistant. Wiggins for example went after Contador (and implicated Sastre) but defended lance harder than anyone else.

Froome has not shown that level.of inconsistency so it's ok, though his team did spend 2 years trying to copy us postal and defend them.

His picture with vino after the Olympics last year and his "cycling is clean because I say so" approach to doping questions does suggest to me that his new found opposition to dopers maybe more Pr.

Still like I say he hasn't shown himself to be a total hypocrite on the issue like his predecessor and he is right to call out Contador.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 13:43
It isn't a statement of fact. Alberto was officially banned for the substance in his body and CAS stated in the reasoned decision that a contaminated supplement was most likely the cause. Anyone without any insider's information can't be sure he doped. As long as Alberto maintains he's innocent and the courts don't convict him for deliberate doping, any comments about Alberto's history are based on belief and opinion, not on fact. So yes, it is an accusation.

Do you think he doped?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: cj2002 on July 10, 2013, 13:47
It isn't a statement of fact. Alberto was officially banned for the substance in his body and CAS stated in the reasoned decision that a contaminated supplement was most likely the cause. Anyone without any insider's information can't be sure he doped. As long as Alberto maintains he's innocent and the courts don't convict him for deliberate doping, any comments about Alberto's history are based on belief and opinion, not on fact. So yes, it is an accusation.

This answers a question I was going to ask... when we (although I try to say uninvolved) describe "doping" what are we saying..? Performance enhancement through the use of EPO/blood transfusions etc..? Being caught with a prohibited substance taken deliberately or otherwise which doesn't have such a direct impact on performance - and if that ingestion is not deliberate, does that still make it cheating? Or what about the extreme control and supplementation of the diet which is common to all athletes and yet completely within the rules. Is it doping because it's unnatural? Is Taylor Phinney one of the only clean riders because he shuns all those caffeine/vitamin pill mixes that are common towards the conclusion of a race?

Should I have asked all these questions in the Darkside and in a thread not about why I don't like Chris Froome (I started this thread, after all...); probably yes.

A couple of other observations, closer to the original and intended topic.

Flo is right - we know she is a fan of Bertie, but she is right. He was banned for having a minuscule amount of a prohibited substance in his blood... the sort of level that I as a toxicologist would be inclined to disregard 9 times out of 10. Implying or accusing anything else is just that - an implication or an accusation. And while the peloton, I agree, need to be more open about doping issues (see for example Greg Henderson's (I think) response to the di Luca positive at the Giro), they need to be extremely careful with what they say in public.

If cycling had a reputation for mass, instutionalised doping which has led to a cynicism and suspicion of almost everybody, let's not add to that a reputation for infighting, bickering and slander.

Leave that to...[insert name of numerous other websites here]
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 13:51
It's ok for riders to accuse dopers of doping. So long as they are consistant. Wiggins for example went after Contador (and implicated Sastre) but defended lance harder than anyone else.

Froome has not shown that level.of inconsistency so it's ok, though his team did spend 2 years trying to copy us postal and defend them.

His picture with vino after the Olympics last year and his "cycling is clean because I say so" approach to doping questions does suggest to me that his new found opposition to dopers maybe more Pr.

Still like I say he hasn't shown himself to be a total hypocrite on the issue like his predecessor and he is right to call out Contador.

Jesus hitch when did you stop liking Contador?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 13:53
Do you think he doped?

I do.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 13:55
Regarding Bertie and the amount of clen he had in him, remind me if that sample went to any other lab he would still be a 7 time GT winner, right?

Yep, level was 400x smaller than level wada labs have to be able to detect, think it was one of the two labs world wide that can detect such a low concentration.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 13:58
Jesus hitch when did you stop liking Contador?

Its got nothing to do with liking Contador. Did Contador dope - yes. Therefore what is wrong with people calling him out for it - nothing. They are telling the truth. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 14:03
Its got nothing to do with liking Contador. Did Contador dope - yes. Therefore what is wrong with people calling him out for it - nothing. They are telling the truth. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that.

Did Contador dope - no one except Contador and eye witnesses know for sure so it is pure speculation. I remember MC threatening to sue me for saying Froome is a doper. Alberto should sue Froome. This is slander and public humiliation. It's despicable.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 14:06
Contador-Bruyneel-Astana-Clenbutarol-Plasticisers-ban-drop in performance.

Contador has some serious explanations to give.

We harangue riders for not speaking out.

Froome asked the question.

Florry harangues him, despite thinking that Contador is/was a doper.

This doesn't make any sense, especially when at the very same press conference Froome is asked repeatedly if he is a doper (albeit in a veiled manner)

Presumeably you think Froome shouldn't be asked these questions, or are you just inconsistent???
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 14:08
Contador-Bruyneel-Astana-Clenbutarol-Plasticisers-ban-drop in performance.

Contador has some serious explanations to give.

We harangue riders for not speaking out.

Froome asked the question.

Florry harangues him, despite thinking that Contador is/was a doper.

This doesn't make any sense, especially when at the very same press conference Froome is asked repeatedly if he is a doper (albeit in a veiled manner)

Presumeably you think Froome shouldn't be asked these questions, or are you just inconsistent???

Froome didn't ask a question.  He didn't ask Hey berto can you explain this? No he said Alberto is a doper. Just like that. No questions asked. Just: he is a doper.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 14:10
Oh no he didn't.  :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 19:34
Oh no he didn't.  :D

Okay :rolleye
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 20:04
Its got nothing to do with liking Contador. Did Contador dope - yes. Therefore what is wrong with people calling him out for it - nothing. They are telling the truth. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that.

The more I think about this the wronger it sounds.

An example:
Hitch has been in a fight with person x for years. At some point the two of them are at the train station. Then all of a sudden a scream and person x gets crushed by a train. Witnesses only saw hitch and person x standing side by side on the edge. Hitch says he didn't push person x. I don't believe him though and call him a murderer. Because I believe he pushed person x, does that mean it is right for me to accuse him of murder? No it isn't.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 10, 2013, 20:51
The more I think about this the wronger it sounds.

An example:
Hitch has been in a fight with person x for years. At some point the two of them are at the train station. Then all of a sudden a scream and person x gets crushed by a train. Witnesses only saw hitch and person x standing side by side on the edge. Hitch says he didn't push person x. I don't believe him though and call him a murderer. Because I believe he pushed person x, does that mean it is right for me to accuse him of murder? No it isn't.

 Imo, you were ahead, you should have quit.
 
Isn't the above exactly what you do with Sky?

 You either think Contador doped, or you don't.
 You say you do, then talk about it all being speculation
 BYOP then brings up the Koln defence,
 so that but for bad luck he would have got away with it?
 A positive test, no matter how small, isn't speculative.

 This is exactly the point I was trying to make, yesterday.
 Hitch is being consistent, you and BYOP on the other hand........

  People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 21:03
It isn't what I do with sky, because my opinion is irrelevant in cycling. Froome's opinion isn't.

I think Alberto doped, however that is speculation on my part. Just like it's speculation on Froome's part when he says he thinks Contador doped. He should realize his opinion can actually do damage.

And besides I despise the fact he calls others dopers to make himself look better. It is also plain stupid. He isn't exactly making himself popular. It will eventually lead to his downfall. He'll end up like LA, sh*t upon by the entire cycling community.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Zam on July 10, 2013, 21:34
Nothing wrong in calling someone was a former doper,  esp. if he was caught doing it. But he could be out of line if he calls out Juanjo as a doper.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 21:54
Well I guess I am alone on something yet again. no problem, I've always been the weird one.

Anyway for me it is a reason to hate Froome so I don't understand why you guys are arguing it?? It's my opinion.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 22:01
The more I think about this the wronger it sounds.

An example:
Hitch has been in a fight with person x for years. At some point the two of them are at the train station. Then all of a sudden a scream and person x gets crushed by a train. Witnesses only saw hitch and person x standing side by side on the edge. Hitch says he didn't push person x. I don't believe him though and call him a murderer. Because I believe he pushed person x, does that mean it is right for me to accuse him of murder? No it isn't.

No. But if my boss at work for the years 2006 through 2009 was a person who was an expert at teaching people to get away with murder,  I had been linked but not charged in the big assasins bust of 2006 and i had DNA of the victim on 1 of my hands which world famous murder science analyst Matt Ashtendon testified could only have come from a pushing  motion, maybe it would be a tad different.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 22:07
No. But if my boss at work for the years 2006 through 2009 was a person who was an expert at teaching people to get away with murder,  I had been linked but not charged in the big assasins bust of 2006 and i had DNA of the victim on 1 of my hands which world famous murder science analyst Matt Ashtendon testified could only have come from a pushing  motion, maybe it would be a tad different.

Check my last post.

PS I miss the old hitch
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 22:10
Anyway for me it is a reason to hate Froome so I don't understand why you guys are arguing it?? It's my opinion.

Err.....maybe because you posted it on an internet forum?

 :wut
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 22:14
Err.....maybe because you posted it on an internet forum?

 :wut

Wait cj asked for opinions. I give mine and suddenly I find myself in the middle of an argument because my opinion is not right?  Wut? I'm sorry I'm not a regular cycling fan but as I said I've always been weird. It doesn't bother me but apparently it does bother others. I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 22:35
I think you might be missing the point of forums.

If you give an opinion, people might challenge it and it is up to you to justify it. Equally it is up to you to challenge opinions with which you disagree.

As long as it remains polite, it isn't a problem.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 10, 2013, 22:39
Check my last post.

PS I miss the old hitch

You don't think i called out Contador before?

Always.

Anyway, you are right in one way, this all is unfair. It is unfair on Contador that he gets caught out and others do not. Other cyclists and especially the more popular members of Spain's recent sporting dominance.
Its also unfair on his fans that many July fans get to use Contador and his fans as an eternal pinata now as an extention of their own narrowminded heroworship of their own riders.

But thats what doping does to a sport. And to sport in general.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 22:40
I think you might be missing the point of forums.

If you give an opinion, people might challenge it and it is up to you to justify it. Equally it is up to you to challenge opinions with which you disagree.

As long as it remains polite, it isn't a problem.

Ok so what happens now that I can't justify my opinion according to the members of this forum. Will I get forced to change my opinion and be forced to not dislike Froome anymore because he was so flipping disrespectful?

I feel what I feel and you can challenge it but it will only end up with some people being peeed off (me) and others being smug because they won the argument. Wow that certainly makes for a friendly forum.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 22:42
You don't think i called out Contador before?

Always.

Anyway, you are right in one way, this all is unfair. It is unfair on Contador that he gets caught out and others do not. Other cyclists and especially the more popular members of Spain's recent sporting dominance.
Its also unfair on his fans that many July fans get to use Contador and his fans as an eternal pinata now as an extention of their own narrowminded heroworship of their own riders.

But thats what doping does to a sport. And to sport in general.

No it is just your whole attitude. You don't seem to be a fan anymore (which is fine btw) and that makes me sad.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 10, 2013, 22:56
Ok, Guys..

First of all this is a Froome thread, not a Contador thread, and although "I dont like Froome because he doesnt like Contador" is a perfectly valid reason, that can easily go in the non-darkside thread.

This is a darkside thread on Froome, so assumedly this will be a thread on "why people dont like froome" because of "darkside reasons". Its possible to like Alberto without disliking Froome, just as liking Froome does not mean you dislike Alberto. Its also possible to like both, or dislike both.

Lets just try and keep it civil.

And Flo, yes you are allowed an opinion, just as others are allowed to question your opinion as long as they do it fairly, if they dont, and this goes for all, feel free to use the report button.

Now as you were ;)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 23:00
Ok so what happens now that I can't justify my opinion according to the members of this forum. Will I get forced to change my opinion and be forced to not dislike Froome anymore because he was so flipping disrespectful?

I feel what I feel and you can challenge it but it will only end up with some people being peeed off (me) and others being smug because they won the argument. Wow that certainly makes for a friendly forum.

You can think and voice whatever you want. Equally, you can choose what attitude you take to the arguments presented to you. There is no forum 'consensus' on this...just a bunch of people with nothing better to do sounding off on the internet.

What you can't do is give an opinion, defend it, and then try and use emotional reasons to hide behind.

If you are on a discussion forum and you don't think you can cope with people disagreeing with you then maybe discussion forums aren't for you.

I can't see that you've any ground s for complaint. Everyone has been polite to each other on this thread and not got all arsey as can happen on doping threads.

Just make sure that you aren't the arsey one.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 10, 2013, 23:08
You can think and voice whatever you want. Equally, you can choose what attitude you take to the arguments presented to you. There is no forum 'consensus' on this...just a bunch of people with nothing better to do sounding off on the internet.

What you can't do is give an opinion, defend it, and then try and use emotional reasons to hide behind.

If you are on a discussion forum and you don't think you can cope with people disagreeing with you then maybe discussion forums aren't for you.

I can't see that you've any ground s for complaint. Everyone has been polite to each other on this thread and not got all arsey as can happen on doping threads.

Just make sure that you aren't the arsey one.

No, I presented my arguments and apparently they are not valid for the other members, but for me they are valid because it is my opinion, I dislike Froome because of the reasons mentioned, I think what Froome said is wrong because of the reasons mentioned, well, if that's not enough, what more can I do?! I can't change the reasons I dislike him. Because you know what, like and dislike are feelings. Feelings are subjective as hell.

Just be clear. What do you want from me. You've been arguing with me endlessly and I still don't have a clue what you want me to do.

What do you want.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 10, 2013, 23:23
I want you to change my mind.

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 11, 2013, 00:41
the sandbox got a little rowdy today
 <3 :niceday
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: AG on July 11, 2013, 01:36
While I dont agree with Florry - she is right in this case.

This thread is all about "why I do (or dont) like a particular rider".  It doesnt have to be justified.  It doesnt have to make sense.  She doesnt have to explain herself to you or me or anyone else.

I think her reasons for not liking Chris Froome are a bit silly really.  But then, my reasons for not liking him are no doubt equally as silly to her.  I can live with that.


As for me - he is kinda growing on me a little now that I have come to accept his darkside tendencies - its not like he is the only one with that issue :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 11, 2013, 01:46
Oh well. I was hoping for a good discussion here.

How about changing the title to "Why I don't like Chris Froome"?

As it stands, the title pretends to ask a question. But no questions are being asked..or answered, apparently.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: DinZ on July 11, 2013, 02:29
Not sure this was ever intended to be a serious discussion.

it was initially - "OK ignoring all the doping stuff i just cannot make myself like this guy and i am not sure why. anyone got any idea"

that kind of question is never going to end up in a sensible discussion.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: ram on July 13, 2013, 05:00
As for me - he is kinda growing on me a little now that I have come to accept his darkside tendencies - its not like he is the only one with that issue :D
What is against him are allegations and being successful after a spurt in performance (explicable or otherwise). Two things that can be attributed to anyone who wins, from  Cancellara to Gilbert to Nibali to Kittel. So I guess it depends on how much one interprets the allegations and how much weightage is given to them. Kittel says one thing to the media and is lauded for being brave while a Froome or Nibali could say the same and could get slated as hypocrites. A case of believing one more than the other? Trust? I don't know, but tisn't dissimilar.

Does Froome stretch belief? He did on a couple of stages. Is sky sh*t as? Certainly for this race, they were burning their matches en route to Ax3 faster than Leopard were in 2011. Do hope Valverde can come back, but can't reserve the same for Contador who's cost Zinger a grand tour, apart from my dislike of his Zac Johnson like punchable face and pistol celebration. Well, mainly the latter two idiosyncrasies... but at least I don't need to hunt for reasons.

The only reason I don't like Froome is that he's a Ken-Pom and the last such sportsman was Derek effing Pringle. That's the best reason anyone's come up with.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: AG on July 13, 2013, 09:54
Certainly growing on me.   While I dont think I will ever qualify as a fan ... I appreciate the way he has approached things.

I will like him a bit more if he goes for it in the Alpes - or perversely, if they attack him.  If he does more than just defend stoically ...

As far as doping ... I do give a bit of weight to some of the allegations against Froome.  But as I said, he isnt the only one there, so it isnt so much of a consideration for me as whether or not I like him.

I like Contador despite his darkside issues.  Gilbert, Cancellara and Nibali may or may not have questions (of course I personally have no doubts, but others insist there are questions ;) ) but in any case I certainly like all of them. 

I can disagree with the decisions that they make, but still like the way they ride.  Hypocritical or not - that is how it is with our sport.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 10:16
I'm beginning to really like Froome. Most of all for what he says in after race interviews, no arrogance, no tantrums, realistic but equally not panicked. I disagree with the comments about Froome's lack of tactical nous. He's kept himself right at the front most days but yesterday he looked like he was on his own. He was there when the decisive break happened and you could see him looking around for support....which wasn't there.I think the balance of Saxo-Sky is down to Rogers.

As much as you have to admire Albertos balls in going for it yesterday, I dearly hope he doesn't win. A convicted doper winning the Tour? No, sorry....its wrong. Just plain wrong.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: kabloemski on July 13, 2013, 11:25
A convicted doper winning the Tour? No, sorry....its wrong. Just plain wrong.

Gotta say I feel totally inclined to agree with you. I do also feel that perhaps second chances are warranted. Especially if it is actually the case that one really doesn't have that much choice - to be competitive is it dope or die?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: LukasCPH on July 13, 2013, 11:38
to be competitive is it dope or die?
I think it is possible to be competitive (meaning, be close to the top of the race) without doping, if you're talented enough.
Look at David Moncoutié, 13th in the 2002 Tour (http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=9007) during the heyday of Armstrong.
Very many of his cycling colleagues have said that Moncoutié would never dope - he didn't even use vitamin pills.

Of course, he also had a very, very relaxed attitude to cycling; he didn't want to be the best at all costs, but was happy doing as well as he could within his own abilities.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: benotti69 on July 13, 2013, 12:02
Ross Tucker

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=642467979097578&id=213103522034028

i think this comment is pretty spot on.

Quote
France had Festina, Germany had Telekom, USA had US Postal, UK has SKY. It's just nationalism. Will be a rude awakening for a few people. "They train harder and smarter!"

He forgot a few the Dutch have Rabo, the Italians have Lampre, the Spanish Once, Kelme, Banesto......

So many.................
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 13:27
He also forgot that all those teams had proven doping systems, but Sky don't.

It's not a valid comment. It's a p1ss poor attempt to create an association in people's minds.

As for the piece, it hinges on the premise that Sky are dominant. With only one GC rider, that is a pretty silly premise. Rubbish premises in, rubbish conclusions out.

If details emerge we can all pretend to be surprised, or not. But it's if, not when.

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: AG on July 13, 2013, 14:05
while I agree with you that it is creating an association with doping that is unfair ...

seriously?   you dont think Sky are dominating?

are we watching the same sport?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 14:22
Ross Tucker
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=642467979097578&id=213103522034028

i think this comment is pretty spot on.
He forgot a few the Dutch have Rabo, the Italians have Lampre, the Spanish Once, Kelme, Banesto......
So many.................

Took me a minute to work out Ross didnt say the thing about the nationalities thing.

The Rabo, Lampre, Postal etc thing is pointless an argument, pick a team that doped and then blame their country and fans for nationalism...
Did germans spend years denying allegations against Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile? Do we see fans attacking Lampre for doping and Italian fans vigorously defending them?

Why dont we extend it, why arent all Australians up in arms about Stephens, or White, why arent belgians up in arms about Ibarguren.

I actually find nationalism a really offensive argument. Nationalism is not that far from racism. Spanish dope, british dont, a racist statement, or a nationalist statement. I get accused of being blind and nationalist because I dont attack sky, and I take that as an accusation of being racist, which im not, and that really gets me.

On a side note, I know more than many what things sky may or may not be up to, if i had something firm to present I would, but as yet I dont, so I say nothing. People read that as some sort of nationalistic loyalty, it isnt, just as yet I dont have any hard evidence, nor have i seen any hard evidence that they are doping.

And im talking evidence, stuff that im willing to stake my opinion on and say "sky are doping, here are the facts"..

Not they look like a duck, and walk like a duck.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 14:25
that said i got to the point where i blocked walsh on twitter because i cant cope with any more of his drivel
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 14:25
I think it is possible to be competitive (meaning, be close to the top of the race) without doping, if you're talented enough.
Look at David Moncoutié, 13th in the 2002 Tour (http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=9007) during the heyday of Armstrong.
Very many of his cycling colleagues have said that Moncoutié would never dope - he didn't even use vitamin pills.

Of course, he also had a very, very relaxed attitude to cycling; he didn't want to be the best at all costs, but was happy doing as well as he could within his own abilities.

Race Radio has said strongly on a number of occasions that Moncoutie was a hardcore doper, and can't understand why anyone would suggest he is clean.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 14:27
When all said and done, the thread is called "Why I dont like Froome - Darkside edition"

If you dont like Froome because he/you think he/he might dope, you may as well open a thread for half the peloton :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 14:31
Race Radio has said strongly on a number of occasions that Moncoutie was a hardcore doper, and can't understand why anyone would suggest he is clean.

Moncoutie is an interesting one..

He insists he wont even take vitamins "If I want vitamin C, I'll eat an orange", MIllar in racing through the dark said that Moncoutie wouldnt take post race recovery liquid or anything.

This had been said earlier by a couple of people and later since, and it seems to perpetuate the myth. Wether or not its true, I honestly have no idea, but Davide certainly has people convinced.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 14:41

Took me a minute to work out Ross didnt say the thing about the nationalities thing.

The Rabo, Lampre, Postal etc thing is pointless an argument, pick a team that doped and then blame their country and fans for nationalism...
Did germans spend years denying allegations against Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile? Do we see fans attacking Lampre for doping and Italian fans vigorously defending them?

Why dont we extend it, why arent all Australians up in arms about Stephens, or White, why arent belgians up in arms about Ibarguren.

I actually find nationalism a really offensive argument. Nationalism is not that far from racism. Spanish dope, british dont, a racist statement, or a nationalist statement. I get accused of being blind and nationalist because I dont attack sky, and I take that as an accusation of being racist, which im not, and that really gets me.

On a side note, I know more than many what things sky may or may not be up to, if i had something firm to present I would, but as yet I dont, so I say nothing. People read that as some sort of nationalistic loyalty, it isnt, just as yet I dont have any hard evidence, nor have i seen any hard evidence that they are doping.

And im talking evidence, stuff that im willing to stake my opinion on and say "sky are doping, here are the facts"..

Not they look like a duck, and walk like a duck.

That pretty much sums up where I stand on the issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sky are doping, but then I wouldn't be surprised if any teams were doping. In the meantime I'm not going to listen to ridiculous contorted arguments trying to prove that they are. People's perceptions are neither here nor there. Exgerration seems to be the name of the game, as are false associations.

You want to compare USPS to Sky? Go for it. But don't just try and cherry pick the bits you think suit your argument. Take it as a whole. Sky has been around for three years now......find me the Emma O'Reilly, find me the hospital room conversation, find me the retrospective TUE, find me the authors amassing evidence for 'Sky Confidential'.

Tell you what, find me anything. Just something. Anything will do.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: LukasCPH on July 13, 2013, 14:45
Race Radio has said strongly on a number of occasions that Moncoutie was a hardcore doper, and can't understand why anyone would suggest he is clean.
Links? Sources?
That would genuinely interest me.


On a side note, I know more than many what things sky may or may not be up to, if i had something firm to present I would, but as yet I dont, so I say nothing. People read that as some sort of nationalistic loyalty, it isnt, just as yet I dont have any hard evidence, nor have i seen any hard evidence that they are doping.

And im talking evidence, stuff that im willing to stake my opinion on and say "sky are doping, here are the facts"..
Indeed, that's the way it should be done. Allegations don't get anyone anywhere.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: kabloemski on July 13, 2013, 14:59
When all said and done, the thread is called "Why I dont like Froome - Darkside edition"

If you dont like Froome because he/you think he/he might dope, you may as well open a thread for half the peloton :D

HALF?!
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 15:56
HALF?!

Yeh, just half the peloton. I didnt say which race ;) And anyway, people dont care about half the peloton

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: kabloemski on July 13, 2013, 16:23
Sad, but true :-)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Flo on July 13, 2013, 18:22
I'm beginning to really like Froome. Most of all for what he says in after race interviews, no arrogance, no tantrums, realistic but equally not panicked. I disagree with the comments about Froome's lack of tactical nous. He's kept himself right at the front most days but yesterday he looked like he was on his own. He was there when the decisive break happened and you could see him looking around for support....which wasn't there.I think the balance of Saxo-Sky is down to Rogers.

As much as you have to admire Albertos balls in going for it yesterday, I dearly hope he doesn't win. A convicted doper winning the Tour? No, sorry....its wrong. Just plain wrong.

A convicted doper or an unconvicted one, it only matters for the image of cycling.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 18:31
...and if Froome isn't a doper????

You need to follow your line of argument through to its logical conclusion. Then if you still think the same you should give up watching.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 18:52
and if Contador isnt a doper????

Links? Sources?
That would genuinely interest me.

The other side. He said "unfortunately not" when I suggested moncoutie was clean, ignored everyone's questions for a month over there and on Twitter, then eventualy replied that he doesn't understand why people say he is clean considering all his team was doping. That's all he's said on it.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: LukasCPH on July 13, 2013, 19:05
The other side. He said "unfortunately not" when I suggested moncoutie was clean, ignored everyone's questions for a month over there and on Twitter, then eventualy replied that he doesn't understand why people say he is clean considering all his team was doping. That's all he's said on it.
To use the words of a former German foreign minister, I am not convinced.

The words of several convicted dopers saying (for no reward of their own) that Moncoutié was cleaner than clean - against a two-word accusation by someone (admittedly someone with a reputation), apparently solely based on association with a dirty team.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: L'arri on July 13, 2013, 19:09
Froome, folks, Froome.  :rolleye
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 19:50
Indeed. Froomster.
(btw, are there two different Froome threads? I think I got lost in the matrix for a bit a short while ago)

I don't mind watching Froome one bit. The more that SKY run into problems (losing riders, etc) the better! I would love to see Froome fight it out on his own. Wouldn't that allow him to easily eclipse Wiggins in terms of legacy? Personally, I can't stand Wiggins, so a Froome win is of utmost importance for me this year. The more dramatic his victory, the more quickly Wiggins will be relegated to "that other Brit" who won the Tour (even if Wiggins did get there first). And doing it without Wiggins there to help him is even better, much better, in my view. If Froome wins the Tour this year, and goes on to be a force for another year or two, Wiggins will quickly fade into history. Adios.

But here's the thing:
Let's suppose that Froome goes on to win a few TdFs over the next few years. Will more people start to embrace him, or will the disbelief and hatred grow even more? I tend to think that without any substantive doping evidence against him, people will tend to get used to him being there. Isn't that what is mostly working against him now, the fact that nobody knew anything about the guy prior to 2011? The image of Froome is still settling into people's consciousness. I truly believe that if after another season or two of consistent performance passes (if that does indeed happen) then the narrative will begin to shift.

If his presence makes race exciting, or at the very least interesting (and that is certainly the case now) then I think time is on his side. The innuendo can only last so long without something coming to the surface. If it does...well, this is cycling. I don't think there would be much outrage. Ridicule? Most certainly. Shock and awe? Hardly. It's cycling.

But what I really wonder about is this:
What if Froome left Team Sky? Would his winning ways continue? Could his winning ways continue? I find that question to be fascinating.
Are the Sky "methods" so intricate, advanced and at the mercy of the staff, or are the "secrets" easily transferable? Has Chris Froome now learned what it takes to get himself into, and maintain, peak condition? Doping or not, could he do what he does at Sky elsewhere? If not, why not?

From another perspective:
What would happen if Contador rode for Sky? Already considered to be the best rider of his generation, what would Kerrison and Co. have done with Alberto? His riding style and technique on the bike is impeccable, he has the heart and will of a champion, he has all the experience one could hope for, so what would be the result? If we follow the Sky logic, what would a totally clean (whatever that would even mean) Contador be like with the SKY "advantage"?

Oh hell...I've already started to derail my own conversation. (Sorry, L'arri!)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 19:56
The problem is, ive yet to see any firm evidence that Froome is doping.

Team Sky ride on the front, US Postal rode on the front, that is just comparative and really when it comes down to actual evidence means flip all. Team Sky hit big power numbers, again, its all subjective. Froome came from nowhere? Again an argument used by those who dont have anything firm to go on, riders do improve, J-Rod, sudden climb in performance, Nibali, sudden rise, countless riders have sudden rise, again its all just opinion.

Theres an awful lot of circumstantial stuff, like Leinders, or comparisons to Postal, or climb times, but in the end its all down entirely to the individuals interpretation.

But the same can be said for Contador, seemingly no evidence in Puerto,  banned for what could well be a contaminated food product, is there any evidence he dopes or has ever doped. Evidence, No, circumstantial stuff, certainly, suspicion, definately, but there isnt actually hard evidence.

The internet is full of opinion quoted as fact, when it isnt, its merely opinion.

I cannot stand here and honestly say "Alberto Contador is a doper", because whatever my "opinion" I dont actually have any evidence to back it up. I can say "Alberto Contador has been banned for doping".

In the same way I cannot stand here and say "Chris Froome is a doper" because I simply dont have the evidence. But by the same token, saying that climbing times mean flip all (And really, people cant even agree wether he went slower or faster than Armstrong), is not me saying "Chris Froome is NOT a doper"

IN the end, ive yet to see any compelling evidence that Froome is doping, but that doesnt mean I dont have suspicions that he is.

But I have sympathy for those convinced they have evidence. Hell, it was tough enough to convince people Armstrong was doping, even with positive tests, eyewitness testimony, dodgy donations and whatever else, so how people are going to convince Froome is doping based on climbing times I dont know. :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 20:16
If evidence emerges, I'll be most interested and not hugely surprised. But for the moment there isn't any, despite the shrill desperation of the naysayers.

I don't have sympathy for them, because their position is not a gallant one. They can never be proved wrong and they know it. They can just sit there until the end of time saying "Sky just haven't been caught yet". The attempts to relate everything back to USPS are risible. Yes, in 2012 Sky controlled with a train on the climbs. Yes, so did USPS. So what? So did teams like Superconfex in the 80's, but many of the naysayers won't know that because they werent watching then.

But, that doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be asked about worrying specifics, like the employment of Lenders. A question which is still a long way from being convincingly answered.

There is a world of difference between asking incisive questions and stamping up and down proclaiming that you know they are doping, you don't.

You can't.

Yet.

You have to consider the very real possibility that Froome is clean as a whistle. If he is, what does that make the people who occupy cycling forums and twitter defaming him with impunity?

Mistaken, certainly. But probably something else as well.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 20:21
what does that make the people who occupy cycling forums and twitter defaming him with impunity?

Jaded, longtime cycling fans?  :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 20:24
 :D.  That's all of us, isn't it?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 20:40
To be honest, I'm not at all unhappy about the fact that Froomey is winning with his awkward style and lack of grace on the bike. Hell, he only saw his first wind tunnel a matter of months ago. To me, it throws a nice pie in the face of those "coaches" and training experts who insist on doing things a certain "correct" way.

It does you make you wonder how much better Froome might be if had a "proper" cycling upbringing, and all that. If it's all DNA and genetics, what if he had been raised in Belgium, and never even contracted Bilharzia?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 20:45
A big part of me don't want Sky to win because Murdoch=evil,  but equally the tirade of ignorant crap that is being flung their way (and nowhere else in the same quantities) makes me hope they win..

....plus I think it would be really cool to have a TdF winner who rides like he's pushing a supermarket trolley with a mobile phone wedged between ear and shoulder
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 20:47
The problem is, ive yet to see any firm evidence that Froome is doping.

Team Sky ride on the front, US Postal rode on the front, that is just comparative and really when it comes down to actual evidence means flip all. Team Sky hit big power numbers, again, its all subjective. Froome came from nowhere? Again an argument used by those who dont have anything firm to go on, riders do improve, J-Rod, sudden climb in performance, Nibali, sudden rise, countless riders have sudden rise, again its all just opinion.

Theres an awful lot of circumstantial stuff, like Leinders, or comparisons to Postal, or climb times, but in the end its all down entirely to the individuals interpretation.

But the same can be said for Contador, seemingly no evidence in Puerto,  banned for what could well be a contaminated food product, is there any evidence he dopes or has ever doped. Evidence, No, circumstantial stuff, certainly, suspicion, definately, but there isnt actually hard evidence.

The internet is full of opinion quoted as fact, when it isnt, its merely opinion.

I cannot stand here and honestly say "Alberto Contador is a doper", because whatever my "opinion" I dont actually have any evidence to back it up. I can say "Alberto Contador has been banned for doping".

In the same way I cannot stand here and say "Chris Froome is a doper" because I simply dont have the evidence. But by the same token, saying that climbing times mean flip all (And really, people cant even agree wether he went slower or faster than Armstrong), is not me saying "Chris Froome is NOT a doper"

IN the end, ive yet to see any compelling evidence that Froome is doping, but that doesnt mean I dont have suspicions that he is.

But I have sympathy for those convinced they have evidence. Hell, it was tough enough to convince people Armstrong was doping, even with positive tests, eyewitness testimony, dodgy donations and whatever else, so how people are going to convince Froome is doping based on climbing times I dont know. :D

well dim you've pretty much covered all the bases here  :D

I don't wish him harm...but if he would close his pie hole or at least temper his comments with a touch of humbleness and intelligence then I would be quicker to give him a pass.

dropping the GC talent like he did on Ax3 and putting that warp drive on didn't make him look very low key....
but whatever...we'll see :O
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 20:56
....plus I think it would be really cool to have a TdF winner who looks like he's pushing a supermarket trolley with a mobile phone wedged between ear and shoulder
LOL

Why, because one wasn't enough?

(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/07/20/1225752/374354-cadel-evans.jpg)

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2807180/data/cadel-evans-on-stage-19-data.jpg)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 21:03
LOL

Why, because one wasn't enough?

(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2009/07/20/1225752/374354-cadel-evans.jpg)


(http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/2807180/data/cadel-evans-on-stage-19-data.jpg)

poor Cadel
he said he rides like that because of a mtb accident :brains :yarr

Froome rides like a stick bug

(http://richard-seaman.com/Arthropods/Belize/Highlights/MatingBelizeStickInsects.jpg)
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 21:08
he said he rides like that because of a mtb accident :brains :yarr
Is that why he talks "like that" as well?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 21:11
oh DB....

(http://www.you-can-be-funny.com/images/drummer14.jpg)

 :D
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 21:13
BOOM!

I mean Froome! (Let's back to Chris)  :rolleye
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: benotti69 on July 13, 2013, 21:17
Took me a minute to work out Ross didnt say the thing about the nationalities thing.

The Rabo, Lampre, Postal etc thing is pointless an argument, pick a team that doped and then blame their country and fans for nationalism...
Did germans spend years denying allegations against Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile? Do we see fans attacking Lampre for doping and Italian fans vigorously defending them?

Why dont we extend it, why arent all Australians up in arms about Stephens, or White, why arent belgians up in arms about Ibarguren.

I actually find nationalism a really offensive argument. Nationalism is not that far from racism. Spanish dope, british dont, a racist statement, or a nationalist statement. I get accused of being blind and nationalist because I dont attack sky, and I take that as an accusation of being racist, which im not, and that really gets me.

On a side note, I know more than many what things sky may or may not be up to, if i had something firm to present I would, but as yet I dont, so I say nothing. People read that as some sort of nationalistic loyalty, it isnt, just as yet I dont have any hard evidence, nor have i seen any hard evidence that they are doping.

And im talking evidence, stuff that im willing to stake my opinion on and say "sky are doping, here are the facts"..

Not they look like a duck, and walk like a duck.

I liked the humour in the the comment Dim, I did not see a racist slant to it. Sky are a brit team. They are not all british but they are defo a brit team. Same for the Ogres, as it was for USPS. My comments that I added were not intended to be racist, it was to flesh out the idea that so many teams and countries (federations) have been and are still part of the problem in the sport.

To me Sky walk like a duck and talk like a duck. There are lots of ducks in the peloton.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 21:17
(http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/22/54/24/4900101/3/628x471.jpg)

:fp
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: benotti69 on July 13, 2013, 21:21
that said i got to the point where i blocked walsh on twitter because i cant cope with any more of his drivel

Intersetingly Walsh went after Michelle Smith without a shred of evidence. It was her massive jump in performance, similar to Froome's.

I find his twitter so pro Sky it borders PR
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 21:26
well dim you've pretty much covered all the bases here  :D

I don't wish him harm...but if he would close his pie hole or at least temper his comments with a touch of humbleness and intelligence then I would be quicker to give him a pass.

dropping the GC talent like he did on Ax3 and putting that warp drive on didn't make him look very low key....
but whatever...we'll see :O

Well in a nutshell,

Is he a doper? Im not going to stand here and say Froome is doping because a) I havnt got a clue if he is or not and b) ive yet to see evidence to convince me either way.
Is he clean? Frankly you would have to be a complete tool to claim any rider is clean considering the sport

At the moment, in the absence of evidence there is only one person in the world that can answer that question, and that is Froome himself, nobody else, not even Michelle.

So it comes down to the third question

Am I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt/Do I "Think" he is doping/Clean - this one is down entirely to personal opinion.

My personal opinion, he might be, he might not be, I dont actually know. Ive not seen hard evidence to say he is, but Ive not seen hard evidence the other way either. Am I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, Im not sure, maybe.

Its a difficult one for me, in that I am aware of some of the things that (I think) Sky (May be/are) up to. Are they technically illegal, probably not, are they against the spirit of sportsmanship, most probably. If I had the evidence to back up what I (think I) know would it make a compelling argument, yes. The trouble is, without the actual evidence Im not going to come out and say, "this is how it is".

Do I think Sky are using currently banned products, or blood tranfusions? No.
Do I think Froome is using EPO, Cera or similar, Blood Transfusions, etc? No.
Do I think Sky are playing the rules to their very limits, carefully managed and scheduled use of TUE's, definately
Do I think Sky are using Products that are on the very brink of illegality, probably
Do I think Sky are using Methods that while not illegal are against the spirit of the sport, yes.

Do I care who wins the Tour de France? No, not really. Wether its Froome, Contador, Mollema, Rolland, whoever, theres always going to be questions asked and doubt, so Ive given up rooting for a winner.

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 21:28
I liked the humour in the the comment Dim, I did not see a racist slant to it. Sky are a brit team. They are not all british but they are defo a brit team. Same for the Ogres, as it was for USPS. My comments that I added were not intended to be racist, it was to flesh out the idea that so many teams and countries (federations) have been and are still part of the problem in the sport.

To me Sky walk like a duck and talk like a duck. There are lots of ducks in the peloton.

It wasnt particularly aimed at you, more generally. Because I havnt been calling out Froome ive had countless tweets aimed at me saying i should take off my "nationalistic blinkers". That I see as a basic accusation of racism.

Thing is, if you go through my tweets over the last few years you could count the people ive actually accused straight out of being dopers on one hand, maybe two at a stretch.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 21:42
Do I think Sky are playing the rules to their very limits, carefully managed and scheduled use of TUE's, definately
Do I think Sky are using Products that are on the very brink of illegality, probably
Do I think Sky are using Methods that while not illegal are against the spirit of the sport, yes.
.

Do I think that if Sky are doing these things, so is everybody else. Definitely.

Welcome to high-level sport, where everybody has their toes right up against the line.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 21:57
It wasnt particularly aimed at you, more generally. Because I havnt been calling out Froome ive had countless tweets aimed at me saying i should take off my "nationalistic blinkers". That I see as a basic accusation of racism.

Thing is, if you go through my tweets over the last few years you could count the people ive actually accused straight out of being dopers on one hand, maybe two at a stretch.

Why did you accuse Nibali then?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: LukasCPH on July 13, 2013, 22:00
Do I think Sky are using currently banned products, or blood tranfusions? No.
Do I think Froome is using EPO, Cera or similar, Blood Transfusions, etc? No.
Do I think Sky are playing the rules to their very limits, carefully managed and scheduled use of TUE's, definately
Do I think Sky are using Products that are on the very brink of illegality, probably
Do I think Sky are using Methods that while not illegal are against the spirit of the sport, yes.
This is like giving us a finger and expecting us not to try to grab the whole arm. :P
I understand that - and why - you won't voice your suspicions, but it doesn't make the situation any less frustrating.

Not even a teeny weeny hint? :fake
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 22:02
 
A big part of me don't want Sky to win because Murdoch=evil,  but equally the tirade of ignorant crap that is being flung their way (and nowhere else in the same quantities) makes me hope they win..

Where is this "ignorant crap". Please show me.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 22:03
Well, as I've stated previously (somewhere):

One problem I have with Sky's success is that when Brailsford first announced their intention to win the Tour within a specific time frame (was it within five years?), he did not come out and say, "We've reason to believe that riders X,Y&Z have the potential to be GT winners, and when combined with all our resources, we think we can make that happen."

No. He just stated his intentions to win. Which seems absurd, because every team that has ever existed would love to have a Tour winner. But why did Brailsford seem to think it was within Sky's grasp? Were their methods so extraordinary that they felt they could transform any number of riders? (see my post above). To narrow that down even further, how could they be so confident in having a "British" winner at that? It all just seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. Again to my point above: What if they had signed Contador, Evans or Andy Schleck? What would we be seeing as a result of that? Take a podium rider, add the Sky magic, and what does that add up to?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 22:05
Was that not last year when Brailsford said that no longer would you see a big attack in a 'clean' peloton??
What happened to that statement?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 22:08
Why did you accuse Nibali then?

Is that a serious question on Why (If I did) did I accuse Nibali, or is that a pre-cursor to accusing me of double standards?

(http://www.empowernetwork.com/jennyjordan/files/2013/03/old-days.jpg)
Thats all...

That was humorous ;)

On the climb times, I wouldnt pay too much due to them, the stage in 2007 was much harder, and also remember this year they have had a day off the day before.

However, Nibali today was embarassing to watch, it was like watching Pantani at his peek, or dare I say it, Vinokourov.. Three colombians chasing together got dropped by him, its only when he eased up at the end they closed any time at all. Yes, theres no Contador, or, well, thats it really, only Contador could have matched him today and to be honest, Im not sure he could have done.

It was just silly, and more than anything it was needless, he didnt have to attack, hes winning the giro, hes got a stage win, he didnt have to take the pee today and rub it in that little bit more..

My one post on the main topic.

Part of my reason for this thread wasnt so much an attack at Vicenzo, but the question, and what I find interesting is that the internet in general is keen to question, Wiggins, or Froome, or other riders, but then other riders are beyond question such as Nibali, Talansky. I know there are countless defences like career progression etc that people will use, but I still find the whole thing on how we decide our basis for allegations fascinating.

fwiw I like nibbles, but I find his improvement (notably in TT'ing) as Astana highly disturbing

My clarification for starting the thread.

Rumours circulating of a positive for Nibali in the first half of the giro.

Nothing concrete at all though. Just whispers.

Rumours.

Its hardly a concerted attack on Nibbles, in three years the best I can come up with is a stage where he makes the Colombians look silly. I was fairly sure I said his time trial was ridiculous as well but I cant find a copy of that.

But yes, to pre-empt you, I am guilty of appaling double-standards and Im racist towards Italians :D

(Or I just like saying stuff to start controversy)



Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 13, 2013, 22:25
Well, as I've stated previously (somewhere):

One problem I have with Sky's success is that when Brailsford first announced their intention to win the Tour within a specific time frame (was it within five years?), he did not come out and say, "We've reason to believe that riders X,Y&Z have the potential to be GT winners, and when combined with all our resources, we think we can make that happen."

No. He just stated his intentions to win. Which seems absurd, because every team that has ever existed would love to have a Tour winner. But why did Brailsford seem to think it was within Sky's grasp? Were their methods so extraordinary that they felt they could transform any number of riders? (see my post above). To narrow that down even further, how could they be so confident in having a "British" winner at that? It all just seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. Again to my point above: What if they had signed Contador, Evans or Andy Schleck? What would we be seeing as a result of that? Take a podium rider, add the Sky magic, and what does that add up to?

Yes, I get where you are coming from with that.

I think two possible answers. One is that it is what he had to say to get the sponsorship, and/or just plain old attention-seeking or PR as it is called these days.

Secondly, he is a central figure in BC and the cycling academy system, which bred world beaters on the track, so he knew of the talent that was there. Of course that doesn't really account for Wiggins and Froome.

Sky are certainly PR heavy.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 22:29
Is that a serious question on Why (If I did) did I accuse Nibali, or is that a pre-cursor to accusing me of double standards?

The first. Im not accusing you of double standards. You have been more consistant than most sky defenders on doping, and i respect that. eg you cheered for vino while most saw him as a very sweet and loaded Piñata.


Quote
That was humorous ;)

Fair enough.

But the next day you said this

On the climb times, I wouldnt pay too much due to them, the stage in 2007 was much harder, and also remember this year they have had a day off the day before.

However, Nibali today was embarassing to watch, it was like watching Pantani at his peek, or dare I say it, Vinokourov.. Three colombians chasing together got dropped by him, its only when he eased up at the end they closed any time at all. Yes, theres no Contador, or, well, thats it really, only Contador could have matched him today and to be honest, Im not sure he could have done.

It was just silly, and more than anything it was needless, he didnt have to attack, hes winning the giro, hes got a stage win, he didnt have to take the pee today and rub it in that little bit more..
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 22:30
This is like giving us a finger and expecting us not to try to grab the whole arm. :P
I understand that - and why - you won't voice your suspicions, but it doesn't make the situation any less frustrating.

Not even a teeny weeny hint? :fake

If I came out and publicly said, Sky arent using Epo, tranfusions etc, I would be laughed at and expected to back it up, but I think a lot of people would be surprised that the drugs of choice arent being used by the big teams anymore (then again, anyone who knows what they are talking about would know that), I very much doubt that many of the teams at all are using EPO anymore, and the constant fear of a validated plasticiser test has a lot running scared from transfusions.

That said, we all know that the bio passport isnt terribly effective, and I would imagine that several teams, Sky included are using non-currently-illegal ways to tailor their hct levels beneficially (although i would strongly argue that anything that involves artificial blood manipulation is banned regardless of substances used to do it).

One of the biggest problems in the peloton at the moment is the use of TUE's, carefully used, strict calendars put in place, and everything done (seemingly) within the rules.

As an example, lets look at one drug, cortisone and with team sky, specifically Wiggins as an example.
A cortisone shot requires 8 days off the bike, no racing for 8 days, technically no training for 8 days but there is no way on earth that the UCI can do anything about riders training. And if a rider has a cortisone shot from his own gp, outside of a team camp, and ten days before a race, theres an argument from the teams point of view that a) we didnt know, b) we didnt need to know

So using Sky in 2012 as an example. The more you race, the less opportunity you have to use cortisone within the rules because of the 8 days off the bike rule. So, logic dictates that if you race less frequently, then your opportunities to use cortisone increase.

lets look at Bradley Wiggins race schedule for 2012
Volta ao Algarve 15th to 19th Feb - 3rd
Paris Nice 4th to 11th March - 1st
Catalunya 19th to 25th March  - dnf
Romandie 24th to 29th April - 1st
Dauphine 3rd to 10th June - 1st
Tour de France 30th June to 22nd July - 1st

So just looking at the races he rode, a good few weeks before Paris Nice, nearly a month between Catalunya and Romandie,over a month between Romandie and the Dauphine, and 3 weeks between Dauphine and the Tour.

Thats three really long periods without racing where for instance, Cortisone could be used without having to worry about the 8 day no racing rule (as I say, training, the UCI cant really do anything about that).


Lets say that Wiggins had gone the more tradition route of using races for training, and done..
Amstel and Liege in early april. Suddenly that nice big block in April is reduced by a week for races plus an additional 8 days cortisone ban. Thats over 2 weeks potential cortisone use of of the window.

Rides the Four days of Dunkirk, or Tour de Picardie, or Tour of Norway in May, thats another week of racing gone, and another 8 days of potential cortisone use.

Already thats a month worth of use of a perfectly legal product taken away, and you cant tell me a months worth of cortisone doesnt have a benefit.

Now, none of this is saying Wiggins was abusing Cortisone all year, but it demonstrates how easy it is, with a change of approach ie. Not using races as training, you can put yourself in a position, where you can use products within the rules (using one single product as an example), to benefit.

Not saying Wiggins was doping in 2012, but already, that is a more convincing argument to raise questions about whether or not he did abuse one particular product, than saying Froome is doping because he climbed a hill really quickly.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 13, 2013, 22:36
Well, as I've stated previously (somewhere):

One problem I have with Sky's success is that when Brailsford first announced their intention to win the Tour within a specific time frame (was it within five years?), he did not come out and say, "We've reason to believe that riders X,Y&Z have the potential to be GT winners, and when combined with all our resources, we think we can make that happen."

No. He just stated his intentions to win. Which seems absurd, because every team that has ever existed would love to have a Tour winner. But why did Brailsford seem to think it was within Sky's grasp? Were their methods so extraordinary that they felt they could transform any number of riders? (see my post above). To narrow that down even further, how could they be so confident in having a "British" winner at that? It all just seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. Again to my point above: What if they had signed Contador, Evans or Andy Schleck? What would we be seeing as a result of that? Take a podium rider, add the Sky magic, and what does that add up to?

Yep. Its such an amazing coincidence that the  2 physiologically most gifted grand tour riders in history (considering we know every other performance that comes anywhere near what wiggins or froome hit out in these last few years was doped)  just happen to be British riders emerging right as Bailsford announces he wants to win the Tour. Not in the 80's or 90's. Not in the 2000's. Not in the 2020's or 30's. Not Italians or Spaniards or Russians. No British riders right after Bailsford announces he wants to win the Tour. Thats when they appear.

What an amazin 100 000 000- 1 coincidence.

And by another sheer coincidence, this just happens to be the time when doping in the peloton stops. Right after Sky form. What luck.

Its like if a gust of wind blew accross a scrap yard and assembled a Boeing 747.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Dim on July 13, 2013, 22:37
The whole not racing as training thing, some view it as "that gives them time to get to some remote island and take EPO"

Or does it just give a larger window of opportunity to fully exploit the rules, use whatever product you can, supported by sports scientists, to reap the maximum benefits without actually crossing the line fully..

Is that illegal? No
Is that against the rules? No
Is it unsporting? Most certainly
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 22:40
Do I think Sky are using currently banned products, or blood tranfusions? No.
Do I think Froome is using EPO, Cera or similar, Blood Transfusions, etc? No.
Do I think Sky are playing the rules to their very limits, carefully managed and scheduled use of TUE's, definately
Do I think Sky are using Products that are on the very brink of illegality, probably
Do I think Sky are using Methods that while not illegal are against the spirit of the sport, yes.
This ties directly into something I proposed a couple of months ago (elsewhere).

I would love to see someone ask Froome the following questions:

1) Do you use any methods or products related to training and racing that you haven't revealed openly and publicly?

2) Are you involved with any type of training or preparation whatsoever that would reasonably be considered controversial by the general cycling public if made known?

3) Are you involved with any methods of training or use of products, whatsoever, that you consider to be within the rules, but that you choose not to reveal so as not to tip your hand to your competitors?

Yes or no.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: pedaling squares on July 13, 2013, 22:44
Good conversation. Why don't I like Froome? I guess I'm just too put off by the "come out of nowhere / overcome a physical impediment > dominate the pro peloton while claiming that methodology and intellect beat doping" model. Not that Froome himself is responsible for much, if any, of the talking. Would I feel the same about Froome if he were dominating on another team? Yes, I think so. Would I feel the same about any other Sky rider putting out these performances? Yes, I think so. I am biased against Team Sky, they give me the "seen this movie before" feeling too strongly to enjoy their exploits. Not all of them, but enough of them. And Froome takes the brunt of much of that. He hasn't actually done much to merit disliking him, except for those "look at me" faux attacks on Wiggins last year. I thought that he needed to either be the strong and loyal lieutenant or try to win the damn thing for himself, but showing his superior strength only to fall back into loyalty made him out to be a twit. It worked, mind you - he got team leadership so good for him.

As for doping, well I think that Froome is doing something that is either currently or will one day be illegal. But I don't know what that is. W/kg is only a part of cycling, and I can't interpret PM data any better than can my dog, but it was of utmost importance to Dr Ferrari and I do tend to view earth-shattering performances with more than suspicion. We had lots of 'rumours' about Armstrong largely because he was such a colossal pr*ck that he left so many enemies and/or scorned insiders in his path. We don't have those rumours about Contador and Froome, perhaps in part because they are decent human beings. With Contador - perhaps we lack evidence that would be absolute proof of doping, but between a loose association to Puerto, dominating under Bruyneel and then Riis, out-climbing everyone except Rasmussen and out TT-ing everyone except (sometimes) Cancellara, popping + for clen, and going from Mt Etna 2011 to today's far more normal performances... well I draw a pretty reasonable conclusion that he was transfusing blood a couple of years ago and is no longer using that method. Maybe we'll have a more complete body of work from Froome in a few years that we can use to draw better conclusions. For now, it just doesn't look right in the context of decades of impressive performances being proven to be the result of doping.

"Pushing a shopping trolley with a mobile phone held between ear and shoulder", now that's a great description of how he rides.

Oh yeah, and this is so petty but... I can't stand the way Froome looks at his PM constantly. It's like he can only ride by the numbers and cannot read the race or his body. But that's not why I dislike him, that's just me being a pr*ck.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 13, 2013, 22:51
Was that not last year when Brailsford said that no longer would you see a big attack in a 'clean' peloton??
What happened to that statement?
Haha, I think you're right. Wasn't Brailsford defending the boring riding of Wiggins as a sign of things to come in the new, clean world of cycling?

Then Froomey and Porte blow the doors off the best riders in the world at the biggest race of the year. LOL
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: mew on July 13, 2013, 23:00
Good conversation. Why don't I like Froome? I guess I'm just too put off by the "come out of nowhere / overcome a physical impediment > dominate the pro peloton while claiming that methodology and intellect beat doping" model. Not that Froome himself is responsible for much, if any, of the talking. Would I feel the same about Froome if he were dominating on another team? Yes, I think so. Would I feel the same about any other Sky rider putting out these performances? Yes, I think so. I am biased against Team Sky, they give me the "seen this movie before" feeling too strongly to enjoy their exploits. Not all of them, but enough of them. And Froome takes the brunt of much of that. He hasn't actually done much to merit disliking him, except for those "look at me" faux attacks on Wiggins last year. I thought that he needed to either be the strong and loyal lieutenant or try to win the damn thing for himself, but showing his superior strength only to fall back into loyalty made him out to be a twit. It worked, mind you - he got team leadership so good for him.

As for doping, well I think that Froome is doing something that is either currently or will one day be illegal. But I don't know what that is. W/kg is only a part of cycling, and I can't interpret PM data any better than can my dog, but it was of utmost importance to Dr Ferrari and I do tend to view earth-shattering performances with more than suspicion. We had lots of 'rumours' about Armstrong largely because he was such a colossal pr*ck that he left so many enemies and/or scorned insiders in his path. We don't have those rumours about Contador and Froome, perhaps in part because they are decent human beings. With Contador - perhaps we lack evidence that would be absolute proof of doping, but between a loose association to Puerto, dominating under Bruyneel and then Riis, out-climbing everyone except Rasmussen and out TT-ing everyone except (sometimes) Cancellara, popping + for clen, and going from Mt Etna 2011 to today's far more normal performances... well I draw a pretty reasonable conclusion that he was transfusing blood a couple of years ago and is no longer using that method. Maybe we'll have a more complete body of work from Froome in a few years that we can use to draw better conclusions. For now, it just doesn't look right in the context of decades of impressive performances being proven to be the result of doping.

"Pushing a shopping trolley with a mobile phone held between ear and shoulder", now that's a great description of how he rides.

Oh yeah, and this is so petty but... I can't stand the way Froome looks at his PM constantly. It's like he can only ride by the numbers and cannot read the race or his body. But that's not why I dislike him, that's just me being a pr*ck.

spot on post PS  :confident
big agreement with you on bolded :yarr

the "shopping trolley" analogy is ace
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 07:18
How do you know that looking down isn't just part of his climbing rhythm.

I say that because I do it. I haven't got a power meter.

 :niceday
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 07:21
Yep. Its such an amazing coincidence that the  2 physiologically most gifted grand tour riders in history (considering we know every other performance that comes anywhere near what wiggins or froome hit out in these last few years was doped)  just happen to be British riders emerging right as Bailsford announces he wants to win the Tour. Not in the 80's or 90's. Not in the 2000's. Not in the 2020's or 30's. Not Italians or Spaniards or Russians. No British riders right after Bailsford announces he wants to win the Tour. Thats when they appear.

What an amazin 100 000 000- 1 coincidence.

And by another sheer coincidence, this just happens to be the time when doping in the peloton stops. Right after Sky form. What luck.

Its like if a gust of wind blew accross a scrap yard and assembled a Boeing 747.

The bolded is where you go wrong in your post. Its pretty early on, actually. No point reading the rest if its all based on an assumption
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 14, 2013, 07:53
from today's Sunday Independent

Quote
QUESTIONS ALL THE WAY HOME

The natural order is being restored but in what category do we place Chris Froome, asks Paul Kimmage

THESE are the words . “Incredible.” “Thrilling.” “Extraordinary.” “Wow.” . the words we used often in the days when we were fans. The words we've used often these past 14 days. These are the things . . . “Now that's a bike race.” “It's not over yet.” “What a performance.” “Vive le Tour.” . . the things we used to say before we were betrayed. The things we wondered if we would ever say again.
Two weeks have passed since the 100th edition of the Tour de France left Corsica and we find ourselves, on a steaming hot night in Lyon, scratching our heads and trying to make sense of it all.
What's happening to this sport? What are we looking at here?
Four years ago, during the opening stage of the 2009 ParisNice in Amilly, Sean Kelly used a word that few had heard him use before or have heard him use since. The former seven-time champion of the event was sitting in a commentary booth for Eurosport as the stage — a flat and not very technical 9.3km time trial — came to a close and was having trouble digesting the performance of Alberto Contador.
The Spaniard, widely acknowledged as the world's best climber, had just covered the distance seven seconds faster than Bradley Wiggins, the 2008 Olympic pursuit champion. Wiggins, who was racing for Slipstream that year, almost spewed when the time was announced. Kelly doesn't do surprise but succumbed to a blink. “Unbelievable,” he said. But the little maestro from Madrid was only getting started.
Three months later, he became the Spanish Time Trial champion and a month after that, he crushed the World Time Trial champion, Fabien Cancellera, in the penultimate stage of the Tour de France.

By the spring of 2012, Contador had won ten times against the watch and become a specialist in the event they call the test of truth, but a new truth has emerged since his 2012 suspension for doping: El Pistolero has been firing blanks.
Compare that defeat of Wiggins in 2009 with his performance last Wednesday against the Frenchman Sylvain Chavanel in the 11th stage of the Tour — a 33km time trial from Avranches to Mont St Michel. In 2009, Contador was 19 seconds faster than the Frenchman; on Wednesday, over a much longer distance, he was 38 seconds slower. He also lost a whopping two minutes and 15 seconds to the stage winner, Tony Martin from Germany.

Martin is, of course, the world champion at the discipline and his win highlighted what we have enjoyed most about this Tour — the natural order is being restored. Climbers are soaring in the mountains again and the fat boys are winning TT's. But in what category do we place the race leader, Christopher Froome?
Two weeks ago, the French sports daily L'Equipe painted an interesting portrait of him on the eve of the race. It opened with a scene from a chic hotel in Monaco last October and a chance meeting between Froome and Richard Virenque, a former Tour stage winner and unrepentant cheat. Froome lives in Monaco, and had met the Frenchman at a party being thrown by Alexandre Vinokourov, another wealthy cheat, who had just announced his retirement from the sport.
Froome's fiancée, Michelle Cound, was also invited and observed from a distance as Virenque engaged with her beau.
“Well, what did he say?” she inquired when he returned. “How did you find him?”
“I found that he knows a lot about cycling,” Froome replied.
“You mean you don't know who that was?” “No, who was it?” “Richard Virenque — the seven-times King of the Mountains at the Tour de France.”
Froome explained his unawareness to the writer Alexandre Roos. “I grew up in Africa and didn't know anything about cycling or the history of the sport. It's something I need to brush up on so I read old biographies.”
“His naivete is refreshing,” his fiancée observed.
She didn't say if he knew who Vinokourov was.
Born in Kenya to British parents, Froome started racing in his mid-teens and competed in his first World Championships at 21 in 2006. A year later, he turned professional with Konika-Minolta, a small South-African team, and in 2008 he joined Barloworld and completed (83rd) his first Tour de France, finishing 31st on AlpeD'Huez (11 minutes behind Carlos Sastre), 18th in the final TT (three minutes behind Stefan Schumacher) and 83rd overall in Paris.

A year later, he raced well in the Giro D'Italia (36th) and was unveiled by Sky when they announced their new team in January 2010. Five months later, he returned to the Giro D'Italia but was struggling with a knee problem and was disqualified on the 19th stage for holding onto a motorbike on the Mortirolo climb.
“He was trying to get up to the soigneur at the top of the Mortirolo. He knew the Giro was over for him,” his manager Sean Yates explained to Cycling Weekly. “Though we would never encourage our riders to hold onto a motorbike.”

Confession: I have never interviewed or written about Froome but if I did, this is how the interview would start: Three years ago, Chris Froome was disqualified from the Giro D'Italia for being towed up a climb by a motorbike; 12 months later, his team had still not renewed his contract. Today, he's the stand-out favourite to win the Tour de France and his ambition is to win six more. How does he explain this remarkable transformation?

In a word? Bilharzia, a waterborne parasitic disease transferred by microscopic snails that he contracted while swimming during a visit to his father in Africa. Tired and powerless on the bike, Froome struggled for 18 months until a proper treatment — Biltricide — was found and he was able to compete again.

In 2011, he announced his return with an outstanding second-place finish at the Tour of Spain. A year later, he finished second behind Wiggins in the Tour de France and second in the Olympic time trial. This season, he has won almost every time he has pinned on a number and arrived in Corsica as the stand-out favourite for the Tour.

Last Saturday’s eighth stage — 195km from Castres to the Pyrenean ski resort of Ax 3 Domaines — was the first major showdown of the race. On the penultimate climb, Col de Pailheres, Froome sent his team-mates to the front and ordered them to turn the screw. There were 20 riders left when the bunch crossed the summit and it was obvious, from the first slopes of Ax 3 Domines, that most of them were struggling.
The Australian Cadel Evans was first of the favourites to crack, then Andy Schleck and Joaquim Rodriguez. Contador's head was rolling; Alejandro Valverde and Nairo Quintana were out on their feet, and there was no response, five kilometres from the summit, when Froome flicked the turbo. One minute and ten seconds had separated the (ten) favourites that morning when they rolled out of Castres. By Saturday evening, it was 12' 38”

The Tour was over: ‘KO Premier Round’ screamed the headline in L'Equipe. But the certainty and sense of déjà vu had created a problem for Froome. He had raced up the climb almost as fast as Lance Armstrong; and the following morning, before the start in Saint-Girons, a section of the crowd booed. And then something extraordinary happened.

The second Pyrenean stage from Saint-Girons to Bagneres-deBigorre was almost 40km shorter than the day before but crossed three extra summits. The attacks started at the drop of the flag and by the summit of the Col de Mente, after just 44km, Froome's team had completely exploded and left him isolated. Most of the aggression had come from the Garmin-Sharp team of Daniel Martin and as they crossed the valley toward the Col de Peyresourde, Froome sidled over to the Irishman.
 “So, what was all that about?” he inquired.
“We just wanted to show everyone that you guys are normal,” Martin smiled.
But the questions keep coming for Froome

Q: Bradley Wiggins is on record as saying that the association with Geert Leinders — or the team’s association with Geert Leinders (a Belgian doctor, associated with doping, who spent three years with the team) — was a good thing. What is your position on that? And how angry do you feel, because a lot of the scepticism about your team is built on that association with Leinders?

A: I personally didn't have much contact with Leinders so I can't really comment . . . It's natural that people are going to have questions . . . In cycling, given the history, whenever there have been great performances they have been linked to doping in the past, so naturally now we are bearing the brunt of a lot of those questions. But, personally, I feel the sport has moved on. I know I'm doing the right thing . . . I know how I've got ready for this Tour de France . . . I know the stage I won two days ago . . . that that result will never be stripped. Outside of that, I don't know what else I can do.

Q: When you were asked after your stage win, you said that the sport had changed and that (these questions) should have been asked of people five years ago. Among those is Alberto Contador, and he was asked just now if he had ever taken any products and his answer was that ‘you can believe what you want, but I've always raced clean and will continue to do so forever’. Is that a credible answer coming from someone who has tested positive?

A: I don't know what he has done or hasn't done. Yes he has served a ban but I can't comment further on that, I don't know the intricacies of the case . . . I think there do need to be questions asked about performances in the past where guys have been very successful and are no longer at that same kind of level, given that the sport has only cleaned up since then.
What if he's right? What if Froome has started winning because the sport is clean? What if he has just delivered one of the truly great performances? What will it take for us to make that leap of faith again? When will it be safe to embrace some wonder again? And who would we rather see win? A polite, mild-mannered Kenyan trying to sell us a dream? Or a Spanish cheat (take your pick) managed by a Danish cheat (Bjarne Riis) who has screwed us royally before?

What's happening to this sport? What are we looking at here?

Stay tuned.


by Paul Kimmage
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 08:41
Thanks for posting that, search.

I think this is a piece that tells us precisely nothing. Lots of question marks, lots of questions, but no answers. Lots of literary devices like 'Froome sidled up to Martin' to imbue Froome with a sense of sinister untrustworthiness.

Kimmage tells us that Froome is 'selling us a dream'. Yes he is, but are dreams not what we love about the sport of cycling? Look at our heroes, Coppi, Bahamontes, even the cheating Garin. Without dreams the beauty of the sport evaporates and we are left to complain about winners, like Wiggins, who show no élan. We cannot have it both ways.

He is right about one thing, though.

"Stay tuned"

It may be that nothing has changed in the sport, or it may be that it has, but for us, the freeloading spectators with no investment other than perhaps a bit of emotion, we'll have to just suspend our disbelief in the knowledge that one day we might be (mildly) disappointed.

If we can't do that, the sensible thing is to turn off our Telly's and go out for a ride instead.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 14, 2013, 09:01
David Walsh pens his latest in the adventures of Froome in todays' Sunday Times, whilst discussing how Froome missed the Saxobank break in the wind, Froome says
Quote
“I had looked at Cav’s back wheel and thought, ‘I’m going to get there’, but Cav took a hand sling from one of his teammates and then sprinted to get on. The minute I saw that, I thought, ‘No way am I going to be able to do that on my own’.”
Cav's version is that Kwiatowski moved aside and he did an "intermediate sprint" to get on the break.

Madison style hand slings are illegal in road racing, aren't they?  They certainly are in the final sprint.

Why would Froome mention this? "I'm strong enough to get on the world's fastest man wheel, but not if he does something illegal?" - that is the implication.

Another bit of the piece which is slightly strange is:
Quote
They have kept on asking Froome why he should be believed and when he produced an excellent performance in the time trial, it was suggested his power output was too high to be achieved without drugs. In the Italian sports daily La Gazzetta dello Sport an expert claimed he had ridden at an average power of 470 watts.

Tim Kerrison, the head of performance support at Sky, believes that number is wrong. “The thing about power output, it depends on what instrument is used to measure it because there are a lot of different instruments. The gold standard for me is the SRM but on normal chainrings, and I would estimate that on normal chainrings, Chris would probably have been 415 to 420 watts in that time trial.”
After all the talk during the week of psuedo-science, why would Kerrison put his own psuedo-science estimated figure into the public domain? It makes no sense to me. Why not just put the actual figure out there? He is implying that Froome gets an extra benefit from the Osometric chain rings. But if that is the case why did Wiggins change back to normal chain rings in the Giro TT's?

The article finishes off with Froome's display of inner confidence of what is to come this week:
Quote
But Froome is the one patting his teammates on the shoulder, telling them they’re doing a great job. “I won’t lose in the mountains or in the time trial,” he says in his quiet way and because there’s not a hint of bravura, they believe him.

They’re unsure what they can do for him but they know what he can do for himself.
The team is falling apart, but Froome thinks he is strong enough to do it himself with minimal assistance.

I suppose all world class athletes need inner belief to win.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 09:38
I think so. A leader cannot show weakness, because of the impact on his team as well as his enemies. For all the talk of science, pseudo or otherwise, it is the will, la volonté, which makes the difference.

As for Kerrison and power values, would he know of Froomes TT value? Is he even at thetour? I Don't know. Be good if they did publish the figures, even with the qualifications
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on July 14, 2013, 09:39
Another thing I find strange is that Kimmage "confesses" he has never interviewed Froome, but would start such an interview with asking about the "remarkable transformation" from hanging onto motorbikes in the Giro to being the favourite for the Tour.

Yet two paragraphs later, he has two questions that readers must assume from the context as asked to Froome, and answered by Froome.
First of all, why didn't he ask about the "remarkable transformation"?
Second of all, if he did ask these questions to Froome himself (presumably during a larger press conference at the Tour), why doesn't he say so?
One short sentence would remove the doubt; it wouldn't have been so hard to write "at a recent Tour press conference I asked those questions", would it?


Kimmage is excellent at asking questions. However, he forgets that a good journalist should be good not only at that, but first and foremost at getting answers.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 14, 2013, 10:08

As for Kerrison and power values, would he know of Froomes TT value? Is he even at thetour? I Don't know. Be good if they did publish the figures, even with the qualifications
Yes. Kerrison is at the Tour. Walsh mentions speaking to him in every article.
Kerrison will be analysing every night the data from each riders SRM.
He will be delighted with Froome's, but scratching his head at some of the others. We are still awaiting an official explanation for the lack of form of Lopez and Suitsou.

One thing I forgot to mention about the article is that Walsh revealed that Thomas was road captain for the Tour filling the Michael Rogers role from last year. Unfortunate then that Thomas is injured and not able to be there at the key moments.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 14, 2013, 10:50
Agree Joachim and Fus - well put.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: benotti69 on July 14, 2013, 10:54
It is obvious why Walsh was selected for the so called 'emded' with Sky and not Kimmage. Walsh comes across at best as clueless to the sport and at worst just there for the ride and a little pr.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 14, 2013, 11:12
Why has Kimmage not interviewed Froome? because Sky wont allow it.

A good piece. I like the way he composed it.

Wonder was he harder and the lawyers took those bits out.

Bartali sold the dream and did it on panyagua as far as i know. Bartali did more than sell a dream he used the dream to save lives and when i look at who rides in the peloton today and how they prance like primadonnas i sometimes wonder why I bother, but i do for the sport not those in it.

To crticise Kimmage, while most other journalists are doing nothing is below the belt.

Walsh has not found anything to criticise Sky over, yet he went for the jugular of an Irish swimmer at the Atlanta olympics based on very little.



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 14, 2013, 11:27
To crticise Kimmage, while most other journalists are doing nothing is below the belt.

Walsh has not found anything to criticise Sky over, yet he went for the jugular of an Irish swimmer at the Atlanta olympics based on very little.

There should be no holy cows - even Kimmage may be criticized - as long as it is fair commentary - and what the guys pointed out seems valid to me.

Walsh is getting the hell criticized out of him at the moment. If Kimmage is guilty of unjournalistic behaviour he's earned his (proportionate) share too.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 11:55
Just  one of the many false assumptions being made by Walsh's critics  is that because they have a monomaniac fixation with doping they think that everything anybody says is some sort of coded message about doping.

They assume that Walsh is writing (and failing) on their agenda, and not his.

He isn't writing a diary about doping. He's writing about the Tour. He said at the beginning that he will write about doping at the end of the Tour, so there aren't grounds for criticising him for not writing about it now.

Kimmage, on the other hand, has nothing to say but says it loudly
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 14, 2013, 13:11
There should be no holy cows - even Kimmage may be criticized - as long as it is fair commentary - and what the guys pointed out seems valid to me.

Walsh is getting the hell criticized out of him at the moment. If Kimmage is guilty of unjournalistic behaviour he's earned his (proportionate) share too.

I would be first to question Kimmage if he was getting it wrong. He isnt. Sky last year said attacking up mountains wa only possible if doping. This year Froome attacking up hills and beating dopers times is dismissed.

Sky are not legit. How they are doing it?

They cant say pacing up a climb at the limit is clean then next year beating the times of dopers is legit!

Kimmage gets it wrong too. He was wrong about Kohl.



Sky have a truckload of questions to answer. Their deflections feed the doubts.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 13:21
So just how many minutes did Froome put into Contador that day with his attack?

Just one, wasn't it?

He's hardly doing a Landis.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 13:22
Well in a nutshell,

Is he a doper? Im not going to stand here and say Froome is doping because a) I havnt got a clue if he is or not and b) ive yet to see evidence to convince me either way.
Is he clean? Frankly you would have to be a complete tool to claim any rider is clean considering the sport
......

Do I think Sky are using currently banned products, or blood tranfusions? No.
Do I think Froome is using EPO, Cera or similar, Blood Transfusions, etc? No.
Do I think Sky are playing the rules to their very limits, carefully managed and scheduled use of TUE's, definately
Do I think Sky are using Products that are on the very brink of illegality, probably
Do I think Sky are using Methods that while not illegal are against the spirit of the sport, yes.

This is a very good statement of the current position.  The use of TUEs is a nail hit.  Any journo wanting to get to the nub of the story at BC/Sky needs to find out how many key riders are getting multiple Cortisone injections with TUEs.  That will then provide a factual account of one of the methods BC/Sky use. 

HGH rt and other practises that are currently not sufficiently defined to be put into the "banned"  category form another block advantage.  Then there is the very close work with CNP Supplements  (MD Kayes).  Again Walsh would be well advised to ask who is on what special products from CNP that the other riders don't get ? 

Another thanks to Drummer Boy and your 3 questions put a few posts ago.  Yes, Yes and Yes would be the answers.  Currently Sky are well ahead in the race that is run before they get to the start. 

Brailsford was just so smug after the Friday stage.  He knows Contador's 1 minute is irrelevant.  The race was won months ago.  Porte lying 2nd was an embarrassment.  It was slightly off plan for him to loose so much time, but what the hell, that was way better than a Sky 1 2 for two years in a row.  Gives such a genuine "feel" to the race for all the Sky fanboys.  The only thing that can wreck the show is if one of the riders not at the core goes walkabout and tests positive on an independent program.

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 13:42
Of course you'll be here to eat your words if Froome loses, won't you?  :D

I can accept that Sky might be doping, or more likely have their toes right up against the line. But, deliberately isolating their leader rendering him their sole chance of a podium?   And all to mollify a handful of anonymous internet chatroom posters? Nope. Sorry.

If we believe the foil hatters, Sky have already got the anti-doping sewn up with the uci, so why would they even care.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 15:43
( seem to have lost a post. ) You need to read what I have written, not what you would like to think I have written.  "It was slightly off plan" .  Dave would never have planned to have Porte drop out of GC challenge.  Show a temporary weakness and then lose no time -  yes.  Lose one or two minutes - yes.  Lose 19 minutes - no way.  but I doubt if any of us could have imagined last Sundays stage would work out like it did once Froome was isolated.  I do know that Port  put in 44 seconds to 2nd on GC and nearly a minute to 3rd on GC in the TT.

You really need to understand how deep the hurt goes with the gibes and accusations about them being doped.  Brad's outburst last year was a glimpse of what lies below. 

UCI link - not a chance.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: The Hitch on July 14, 2013, 15:50

You really need to understand how deep the hurt goes with the gibes and accusations about them being doped.  Brad's outburst last year was a glimpse of what lies below. 

UCI link - not a chance.

Why should anyone sympathise with how wiggins feels when he accused Carlos Sastre by proxy of being doped. When he said in 2007 that anyone who wins the Tour deserves questions. Werent those people hurt or is it only bad if it hurts brad.

When he called Garmin the equivalent of Wigan.

What about when he said to people who had been screwed by armstrong that Armstrong had made the sport better and that even his detractors benefited from his work

What about when he attacked Landis and said that landis was making up stories when Landis testified against Lance. Does Landis not have feelings. Do the people who supported Landis coming forward not have feelings?

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 15:51
I wrote that before going to watch the last 13km, although it did not post up for some reason, maybe login timed out.  Anyway after today's stage, I think my words are safe from self consumption for a little longer and my oh my, wasn't that a display by Porte.  Not only can he TT with the best, it looks like he could ride all of the climbers off his wheel except Froome and Contador, as well as get Quintana back.   

No it was not on plan for him to lose 19 mins.  An opportunity came up on the road to make a "duff" move and gift a chance to the other teams to make Sky look vulnerable.  The other teams took advantage in a way Dave could not have imagined and it left Sky with all their eggs in one basket.  It could still all go wrong for Sky, but that is less likely than more.
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 15:56
Why should anyone sympathise with how wiggins feels when he accused Carlos Sastre by proxy of being doped. When he said in 2007 that anyone who wins the Tour deserves questions. Werent those people hurt or is it only bad if it hurts brad.

When he called Garmin the equivalent of Wigan.

What about when he said to people who had been screwed by armstrong that Armstrong had made the sport better and that even his detractors benefited from his work

What about when he attacked Landis and said that landis was making up stories when Landis testified against Lance. Does Landis not have feelings. Do the people who supported Landis coming forward not have feelings?
Brad and the Sky boys deserve it all.  I'm putting forward the reason why Porte had a temporary relapse last week.  It wasn't planned to turn out like that but not having a Sky 1 -2 would allow Dave some breathing space.  Kicking the backside out of all the other teams makes it darned hard to say they are not bending the rules.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 14, 2013, 16:02
So Froome clocks the joint 6th (with Armstrong 2002) fastest time up Ventoux on a road stage.
http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/froomey-high-speed-ascent-up-ventoux.html (http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/froomey-high-speed-ascent-up-ventoux.html)
Right?
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 16:03
What does a champion look like?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 14, 2013, 16:13
Froome topics merged. Far too confusing
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on July 14, 2013, 16:18
I would be first to question Kimmage if he was getting it wrong. He isnt. Sky last year said attacking up mountains wa only possible if doping. This year Froome attacking up hills and beating dopers times is dismissed.
Fully agree. Questions should be asked, and certainly Kimmage is as good a person to ask them as any (in fact, he's probably better than most others).

But he isn't doing his own credibility any service by writing in the way he writes, only asking questions and giving hints, while also being sluggish with crediting his sources - you can't say you haven't ever interviewed someone first, and then use two quotes from the same person in the same article without saying where they come from. If they are from other journalists, give credit; if they are from himself, what he said earlier is bending the truth, at least.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 14, 2013, 16:19
I'm goin all in...all dawg! Bring it on, bitches! LOL
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 16:19
What does a champion look like?
History has taught us that we are unlikely to find one at the Tour in yellow.

I would say, look out for a rider that does not fit in to an organisation that looks like it is doping.
That would wipe out a swathe of the tour peloton.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 16:22
Froome topics merged. Far too confusing
  For a minute there I could not access the forum at cycling news and the thread I was on vanished.  I was starting to think about the conspiracy theorists !
Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 16:24
History has taught us that we are unlikely to find one at the Tour in yellow.

I would say, look out for a rider that does not fit in to an organisation that looks like it is doping.
That would wipe out a swathe of the tour peloton.


No, seriously.

What does a champion look like?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: User Guide on July 14, 2013, 16:29
I'm goin all in...all dawg! Bring it on, bitches! LOL

Time too change his moniker from the dawg to the honeybadger cos he just dosent give a ******* :rolleye

The gulf between Froome and Porte and the rest of the peloton(including their own teamates) is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 14, 2013, 16:34
The doc's first look at the numbers:

Title: Re: Why don't I like Chris Froome? - Darkside Version
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 14, 2013, 16:38

No, seriously.

What does a champion look like?
Well, this image does come to mind:

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRv_T94HnpM6Iu2PWW4R-NbFTYmsJZfHhtCexv9Ks_QAuXGweooTQ)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 14, 2013, 17:00
Sorry, but I just can't get upset about a Froome Dawg victory.

If he's going to win the TdF, I certainly want him to do it with style and flair. He's doing just that.

If not Froome, then who? Who amongst the contenders am I supposed to take seriously? As long as Evans, Schleck and Contador are still racing,  I don't mind seeing someone new come along and cause a bit of chaos. If the (ex) dopers are being out-doped, I can still find entertainment in the spectacle of it all. If some truly clean riders are being cheated out of what should be rightfully theirs, then it's up to them to do something about it. The riders know. I don't.

Riders, directors and admins have all assured us—over and over and over again—that doping is a thing of the past. New generation.

Cool. That's why I love the Froome show. If everything is clean and pure, then I get enjoy some terrific racing—and this has been some terrific racing! But if the sport is still dominated by dopers, then much of what they're telling us is all BS. And I'm cool with that too, because I don't place much faith in anything that any pro athlete tells me any way.

Is Froome legit?
If so, this is fantastic!
If not, then everything coming from the collective PR machine is laughable and they'll have to eat their words. Either way, it's just entertainment for me. And it's free. :-)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 14, 2013, 17:01
this image came to my mind

(http://filmforno.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/whiteheat2as4.jpg)

"Top of the world, Ma!"

one of my favorite flicks of all time..."White Heat"  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 14, 2013, 17:02
this image came to my mind

(http://filmforno.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/whiteheat2as4.jpg)

"Top of the world, Ma!"

one of my favorite flicks of all time..."White Heat"  :D

If he were still around today, Jimmy Cagney would be riding for Sky.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 17:05
OK a new one.  Was Quintana bought off by Froome ?  Lots of conversations between Froome and Quintana and Froome on the radio.  Sorting out the price ?  The image -  Froome,  yellow top of the Ventoux was certainly going to be the one that will last, when he wins.  $ 50,000 ?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 14, 2013, 17:06
If he were still around today, Jimmy Cagney would be riding for Sky.
No! he was too much his own person...and wasn't into marginal gains  <3
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 14, 2013, 17:09
OK a new one.  Was Quintana bought off by Froome ?  Lots of conversations between Froome and Quintana and Froome on the radio.  Sorting out the price ?  The image -  Froome,  yellow top of the Ventoux was certainly going to be the one that will last, when he wins.  $ 50,000 ?

I'd say the opposite actually. And in doing so, I'm going to reach a bit here.  :D

I think Froome tried to do an Armstrong-Pantani deal, for QT to work in return for the stage. And I think QT said no.

Of course, Froome had bags left and dropped him.

So, based on this theory, why would Froome want QT to work if he evidently didn't need it? The lending of legitimacy?  :rolleye Told y'all I was reaching... :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 17:11
OK a new one.  Was Quintana bought off by Froome ?  Lots of conversations between Froome and Quintana and Froome on the radio.  Sorting out the price ?  The image -  Froome,  yellow top of the Ventoux was certainly going to be the one that will last, when he wins.  $ 50,000 ?

Yes, why not try a new line to try and sully his win.

Of course, you probably don't even realise you are besmirching Quintana too   :whistle
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 14, 2013, 17:14
Yes, why not try a new line to try and sully his win.

Of course, you probably don't even realise you are besmirching Quintana too   :whistle

RTS is wondering aloud, just as I was. Theories, however daft and far-fetched they may sound, are still allowed. Criticise a supposition, not the user.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 17:17
Criticising the supposition is precisely what I am doing. It implies Quintana is immoral as well as Froome, and denies that Froomes win was earned. There is no personal attack in that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 14, 2013, 17:20
I am a bike geek and gawd help me I love to watch bikes and bike races but this TdF is really close to tipping over to the "enough" camp.

I guess I have no belief in any of it any more but this Froome idiot is just making all of US look like fools for even watching.

And if I heard the Paul + Phil duo talk one more time about the "high cadence" I may have thrown something at the TV.  Jesus, 242 km stage, end of the Ventoux , 10+% grades and he's suddenly spinning 130 rpm and dropping everyone ....

Just ridiculous.  And it is NOT fun to watch anymore.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 14, 2013, 17:20
I'd say the opposite actually. And in doing so, I'm going to reach a bit here.  :D

I think Froome tried to do an Armstrong-Pantani deal, for QT to work in return for the stage. And I think QT said no.

Of course, Froome had bags left and dropped him.

So, based on this theory, why would Froome want QT to work if he evidently didn't need it? The lending of legitimacy?  :rolleye Told y'all I was reaching... :D

Froome said post race that he told Quintana that if they work together quintana can go up in gc. Stage win not discussed.  I think Froome always wanted Ventoux win.

Wonder if he feels that way about Alpe. Hope so.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 17:24
Joachim I just don't know what you think is going on.  They are having a conversation.  They are not discussing what they are going to have for tea tonight.  It is easy, it has to be, either work for the other guy - what do you give me  or buy one another off.  There is no other conversation at that stage of the race.  Froome takes off and Quintana does not respond and yet looks like he has gas in the tank.  Quintana is either looking forward to being a blindingly good poker player or was bought. 

Quintana was never going to be able to buy Froome, even though he may have tried, but the other way round was a possible deal.

Could be Froome was on the radio to Sir Dave to see if Quintana's offer to buy the stage from him was one they could accept.  Not as likely as the other way around is my proposal.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 17:28
I am a bike geek and gawd help me I love to watch bikes and bike races but this TdF is really close to tipping over to the "enough" camp.

I guess I have no belief in any of it any more but this Froome idiot is just making all of US look like fools for even watching.

And if I heard the Paul + Phil duo talk one more time about the "high cadence" I may have thrown something at the TV.  Jesus, 242 km stage, end of the Ventoux , 10+% grades and he's suddenly spinning 130 rpm and dropping everyone ....

Just ridiculous.  And it is NOT fun to watch anymore.

What would have made it believable? How much less of a cadence, how much less of a time gap?

If Froome wins the Tour with his 5' margin, would you say that is indicative of doping?

If he won by 20' would that be definitive proof of major doping?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 17:29
Froome said post race that he told Quintana that if they work together quintana can go up in gc. Stage win not discussed.  I think Froome always wanted Ventoux win.

I am sure he wasted breath telling him that, after all Quintana would not have known otherwise would he. 

"Hey Froome, well I never,  I am just so glad you told me that, who'd have thunk it ! "

That is what is so annoying.  A blatant false line is just swallowed by the journo doing the interview.  No follow up - Chris did you really think that Quintana is so ignorant that he did not know that ?  What was it you really were discussing ?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 14, 2013, 17:32
Quintana was never going to be able to buy Froome, even though he may have tried, but the other way round was a possible deal.

Quintana already said a couple of days ago that his target was to win a stage by beating Froome in the mountains, so he implied that he does not want a gifted stage victory - so I do think it's possible that Froome offered him the win but he denied it for being too proud
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 14, 2013, 18:16
Quintana already said a couple of days ago that his target was to win a stage by beating Froome in the mountains, so he implied that he does not want a gifted stage victory - so I do think it's possible that Froome offered him the win but he denied it for being too proud

 I think Quintana is well capable of taking a mountain stage, if not more.
 I am I the only one here who thinks that Movi aren't using him properly?
 I know folks were begging for him to attack, but to me, he went far too early,
given there was only Mike Snow up ahead.

 Instead, we had the team burning themselves for 100kms for no reason.
 The Alpine stages are better suited to setting up some stepping stones.
 No go solo.

(why am I posting this in the darkside?)
 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 14, 2013, 18:23
I think Quintana is well capable of taking a mountain stage, if not more.

yeah, of course he is. my posting wasn't meant negatively
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 14, 2013, 18:53
I think Quintana is well capable of taking a mountain stage, if not more.
 I am I the only one here who thinks that Movi aren't using him properly?
 I know folks were begging for him to attack, but to me, he went far too early,
given there was only Mike Snow up ahead.

 Instead, we had the team burning themselves for 100kms for no reason.
 The Alpine stages are better suited to setting up some stepping stones.
 No go solo.

(why am I posting this in the darkside?)
In hindsight, yeah he went too early. But if Kennaugh and Porte had not been having good days, it might have worked.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 14, 2013, 19:10
Sky have a truckload of questions to answer

Just saying that journos have to be clear what is fact and what is their hunch/opinion - it's their job - I won't start just taking people's word for stuff, I always try to look critically at things. And PK's a man after all - we all fall down - if he's gone a bit cock eyed we should kindly let him know?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 19:14
Joachim I just don't know what you think is going on.  They are having a conversation.  They are not discussing what they are going to have for tea tonight.  It is easy, it has to be, either work for the other guy - what do you give me  or buy one another off.  There is no other conversation at that stage of the race.  Froome takes off and Quintana does not respond and yet looks like he has gas in the tank.  Quintana is either looking forward to being a blindingly good poker player or was bought. 

Quintana was never going to be able to buy Froome, even though he may have tried, but the other way round was a possible deal.

Could be Froome was on the radio to Sir Dave to see if Quintana's offer to sell him the stage was one they could accept.  Not as likely as the other way around is my proposal.

Froome wanted time above all else.  Quintana wants the white jersey. They both wouldn't turn down the stage. It was in both their interests to keep working together and not start finessing, hence Froome egging him on. He may have offered him the stage but....

I just think Quintana was blown.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 14, 2013, 19:52
Joachim I just don't know what you think is going on.  They are having a conversation.  They are not discussing what they are going to have for tea tonight.  It is easy, it has to be, either work for the other guy - what do you give me  or buy one another off.  There is no other conversation at that stage of the race.  Froome takes off and Quintana does not respond and yet looks like he has gas in the tank.  Quintana is either looking forward to being a blindingly good poker player or was bought. 

Quintana was never going to be able to buy Froome, even though he may have tried, but the other way round was a possible deal.

Could be Froome was on the radio to Sir Dave to see if Quintana's offer to sell him buy  the stage from him was one they could accept.  Not as likely as the other way around is my proposal.
Sorry my mistake -  nuts !  Red original post - blue correction.  Makes sense now. I have gone back and corrected the original.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 20:01
I genuinely don't think any buying and selling went on, if only because if it had then Quintana could have lost by half a wheel.

Froome was on the rivet at the finish. Quintana never looks any different.

Anyhoo, suspending all disbelief, I think this stage was the best in years
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 14, 2013, 21:35
What would have made it believable? How much less of a cadence, how much less of a time gap?

If Froome wins the Tour with his 5' margin, would you say that is indicative of doping?

If he won by 20' would that be definitive proof of major doping?
I doubt that anyone can quantify what is clean cycling, and what is not. I sure as hell cannot. But some things just make me say, "That ain't right." Ricco 2008 is a prime example. Didn't look right, and wasn't right. Froome's attacks on Ventoux are in that category. I can't tell you he's doping, but he sure doesn't look clean.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 21:46
He didnt look like Ricco to me, today. Ricco was riding up the hill, mouth closed, practically winkng at th camera man. Froome looked like he was doing an uphill TT. He looked in pain at the end.

The point I'm getting at is what does a clean champion look like?

Coppi won by 20 minutes.

(Not strictly clean, I know, but nothing significant used)

The only thing I can say is just how bad Alberto looked in comparison. Froome looked like Alberto used to, which I guess is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 14, 2013, 22:03
Froome wanted time above all else.  Quintana wants the white jersey. They both wouldn't turn down the stage. It was in both their interests to keep working together and not start finessing, hence Froome egging him on. He may have offered him the stage but....

I just think Quintana was blown.
Which supports what Quintana said,

"Unfortunately, Froome caught me. He's way superior than the rest. The first attack came from behind and took me out of focus. I followed his wheel in the distance and ended up bridging. He thought I was stronger than I was really feeling, and that's why he talked to me, telling we should keep pushing to leave Contador behind, and he'd let me win the stage. But I knew it was a bit of 'fake agreement', because I saw how strong he was and I had to fool him a bit to get that far into the climb. He needed to take more time, I'm not at the same level and even though he didn't fulfilled his promise, I understand him. I knew I wouldn't be able to put up with another attack, and when he move, I pulled a bit off the gas, took a breath and went on my pace until the finish so as not to lose too much time."

So that would appear to be the truth then. Unless we think that Quintana is a lying SOB up to his neck in a conspiracy, peddling blatant falsehoods to a complicit press pack?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if money did change hands after the stage; but not involving Sky or Movistar
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 14, 2013, 22:05
So that would appear to be the truth then. Unless we think that Quintana is a lying SOB up to his neck in a conspiracy, peddling blatant falsehoods to a complicit press pack?

I doubt Movistar would publish a press release saying that Team Sky unfortunately did not accept their 50000 $$ offer to let them win the stage - but yeah, it could very well be the truth, sounds plausible to me what Quintana says
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 14, 2013, 22:20

The point I'm getting at is what does a clean champion look like?


An oxymoron?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 14, 2013, 22:39
That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Last year Wiggins was crucified by all the hate mob for being a doper (snort) and for just crawling along up and never attacking.

What do people want? A Tour where nobody wins?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 00:42
This is what totally flipping frustrates me. People are so close to presenting excellent data and information, but they completely ruin it by presenting half the story.

(http://i40.tinypic.com/9bdtfl.png)

People just see the table, they dont see the footnote at the very bottom mentioning faster times by Mayo and Pantani, they just see the top three or four riders and make assumptions.

its shoddy, and it does nobody any favours.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 00:44
On a side note, the parcours, stage profile and gc positions compared for those four years.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 15, 2013, 00:55

That's kind of what I'm getting at.

Last year Wiggins was crucified by all the hate mob for being a doper (snort) and for just crawling along up and never attacking.

Where are these posts? I haven't seen them here.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: riding too slowly on July 15, 2013, 00:58
Quintana is going to tell some dumb journo  he took money  to take a dive !  For goodness sake.
OK watched the highlights again.  Unbroken coverage on the Ventoux. 

1 The wind.  Very little causing the flags to wave in the woods.  Further up very windy.  Mainly cross with some behind but mainly from slightly ahead, depending on how the curve of the road was.  Certainly not from the rear.

2 Not much talking between Froome and Quintana early on.  But around 4 km out (sorry not exact) Froome puts in an attack that has him out of the saddle, distances Quintana and then Quintana rides back up to him no problem.  Lots of stuff on the radio and then talking.  At 3.1 Froome talks to him and then Quintana nods his head as if in agreement.  Froome definitely trying harder than Quintana when together but then Froome does have far more at stake.  Froome attacks again and Quintana just lets him go.

OK so the agreement they reached was who buys the coffee at the top.  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 01:03
Personally I've no problem with not including time trials (although they should mention that they aren't) but not including Pantini is a bit much.

So dont use a time trial as comparison, but we can use schlecks time, which was on a stage 50km shorter, but later in the race and after three tough days in the mountains and a time trial, in weather that was 4 degrees cooler, but with a 20kph stronger wind as a comparison.

This is why climbing times alone are such utter nonsense..
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 01:10
(The wind well I've heard tailwind and headwind so.. :))

Oh the wind comes from a different direction depending on which rider you listen to. I think they are messing with peoples heads to be honest ;)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 15, 2013, 01:39
So dont use a time trial as comparison, but we can use schlecks time, which was on a stage 50km shorter, but later in the race and after three tough days in the mountains and a time trial, in weather that was 4 degrees cooler, but with a 20kph stronger wind as a comparison.

This is why climbing times alone are such utter nonsense..

The fact that you list multiple small variables is detrimental to your argument because the more there are the more chance that they even themselves out on some level.

The fact at the end of the day is that times up climbs have been similar to eachother during  doping eras but different between eras. They fell massively in the 90's, then came back up a tiny bit after the 50% rule (more if we exclude armstrong who had permission to use 90's style doping). They then came up a little more since 2008.

On Alpe d huez the top 16 climbs and 22 of the top 23 all fall between 1994 and 2006 even though less than a quarter of Alpe d huez ascents took place in that period.  Statistically those numbers conclusively show that doping is a huge variable.

Vettoo btw has average figures for the 2000-2008 period and then the 2008-2012 period so those arent single climbs but a compliation of averages.  The 2008 -2012 ones are lower.

Both Froomes climb last week and his one this week fall above average for both those time periods. Everyone else fell below 2000-2008 and average for 2008-2012.

So what are the chances that the conditions were extremely favourable to Froome on BOTH ax 3 domianx AND today at Ventoux. And why were they only favourable to him?


Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 15, 2013, 02:07
Firstly - the idea that Quintana sold the stage to Froome IMO is completely ludicrous.

Yes stages have been sold before no doubt ... but that does not mean that every time riders talk a stage is being bought and sold.  Riders talk to each other.  Try and bluff the other one, try and get each other to work etc.

I have no real doubts that Froome offered Quintana the stage win in exchange for working together in order for Froome to distance Contador. 

Secondly - Froome's level.  Do I think Froome is clean?  No.   Do I think any of the guys he is beating is clean?   Not really .... so once I accept that, I am kinda fine with watching the race and being happy to see good, hard, attacking racing.

Does the anti-doping, we are the good guys narrative p*ss me off ... yes.   But I am angry at the sport as a whole, and the UCI for allowing this - not really just at Chris Froome.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 15, 2013, 02:35
Problem is there is just too much fluff

i think people that posts times on mountains without any background analysis are as bad as those that will not listen to anyone

I honestly do believe that Froome is clean, but when i see posts like veloclinic it at least makes me pause for thought. what i hate is the bullsh*t noise from arm chair experts that state stuff like it is fact.

only way to move forward is for teams to publish more data. the only way to do that fairly is for everyone to do it to a neutral group
that should be UCI but obviously they cannot or do not want to do it. and no one trusts them now anyway

teams want to protect their data, i suspect some of this is down to sporting advantage (if they provide an exact breakdown of how they achieved something then others can do the same) but mainly i think this is because the numbers are just plain hard to understand. Some times clean riders have amazing days and sometimes they do not and a lot of the time i am not sure anyone really understands why. and it is that massive gap in understanding that also scares the teams because they cannot explain everything

that does not mean riders are doping

problem now is also what do you compare the numbers too.
Every rider produces data today. say we assume they are clean. then in reality you would need to collect data for a lot of races for a couple of years from a great number of riders before you can start to make realistic comparisons. and even then how easy is it to spot the cheats? You get Vaughters saying he can tell if a rider is doping based on the data he sees? but is it really that easy? can he see a small time doper compared to a big one?

i think the problem is then it becomes a mass of data, and a massive model that would try to look for anomalies. a massive task. and even then riders will find ways to dope that will not flag up in the tests.

I am rambling now and lost where i was going.

so instead we have to rely on peer pressure in cycling. make it so that cheating is not accepted by teams or riders. make it that when a rider cannot explain a performance increase to his team then they boot him and the other riders shun him. I would back like bans but then like the death penalty i worry about mistakes. where do you draw the line? contador and his tiny failure, should he be banned for life? 






Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 15, 2013, 02:37
Firstly - the idea that Quintana sold the stage to Froome IMO is completely ludicrous.

Yes stages have been sold before no doubt ... but that does not mean that every time riders talk a stage is being bought and sold.  Riders talk to each other.  Try and bluff the other one, try and get each other to work etc.

I have no real doubts that Froome offered Quintana the stage win in exchange for working together in order for Froome to distance Contador. 

Secondly - Froome's level.  Do I think Froome is clean?  No.   Do I think any of the guys he is beating is clean?   Not really .... so once I accept that, I am kinda fine with watching the race and being happy to see good, hard, attacking racing.

Does the anti-doping, we are the good guys narrative p*ss me off ... yes.   But I am angry at the sport as a whole, and the UCI for allowing this - not really just at Chris Froome.

do people really think he sold the stage?

i think he was just bluffing well and also the nature of the climb. looked like a few guys lost it around the same place. contador, mollema etc all seemed to start struggling on that patch
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ram on July 15, 2013, 03:28
Froome definitely sold the stage. He's also patient zero, he gave Bin Laden shelter in Abottabad and is the reason for the Kuril Islands dispute is custody of Chris Froome....

But seriously, he's given more than enough doubt to believe he's a doper, but without even a fixing allegation.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 15, 2013, 08:25
Dinz honest question.

If you believe froome is clean , do you believe the peloton is clean ?

That's what is see as the issue.

In pure performance racing froome is so dominate, only time he gets beaten is by conditions or racing smarts.

So if he is clean the rest of the riders are and he is going to be the most dominate clean rider since well ever.

Which would be a 1st in cycling, and even without comparing times looking at vam etc has me saying imo froome = doped.

I do not believe riders such as valverde are clean and so there is no real chance the rider would dominates riders would dope ( imo ) can be clean.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 15, 2013, 09:11
Dinz honest question.

If you believe froome is clean , do you believe the peloton is clean ?

That's what is see as the issue.

In pure performance racing froome is so dominate, only time he gets beaten is by conditions or racing smarts.

So if he is clean the rest of the riders are and he is going to be the most dominate clean rider since well ever.

Which would be a 1st in cycling, and even without comparing times looking at vam etc has me saying imo froome = doped.

I do not believe riders such as valverde are clean and so there is no real chance the rider would dominates riders would dope ( imo ) can be clean.

What about Basso ... do you think he is clean?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 15, 2013, 09:14
Evans is clean.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 15, 2013, 09:14
What about Basso ... do you think he is clean?

Is the useof robotics doping ? :D

But sure robobasso  was full blown , but I can still love a doped rider I have come to that point
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 15, 2013, 09:20
Evans is clean.

Good I would hope so with that performance. :lol



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 15, 2013, 09:28
Is the useof robotics doping ? :D

But sure robobasso  was full blown , but I can still love a doped rider I have come to that point

No talking about the good old days  :D  :brzzzz ...  I mean since May 2011.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 15, 2013, 09:37
Evans is clean.

I don't think I'd ever feel confident enough to say that definitively about any rider.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 15, 2013, 11:21
This is what totally flipping frustrates me. People are so close to presenting excellent data and information, but they completely ruin it by presenting half the story.

(http://i40.tinypic.com/9bdtfl.png)

People just see the table, they dont see the footnote at the very bottom mentioning faster times by Mayo and Pantani, they just see the top three or four riders and make assumptions.

its shoddy, and it does nobody any favours.
2009 was the stage where they didn't really race. Schleck A rode for Schleck F and Contador rode for Armstrong. The whole race was about third place by that stage. Contador and Schleck A barely broke sweat.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 15, 2013, 11:29
Quintana is going to tell some dumb journo  he took money  to take a dive !  For goodness sake.
OK watched the highlights again.  Unbroken coverage on the Ventoux. 

1 The wind.  Very little causing the flags to wave in the woods.  Further up very windy.  Mainly cross with some behind but mainly from slightly ahead, depending on how the curve of the road was.  Certainly not from the rear.

2 Not much talking between Froome and Quintana early on.  But around 4 km out (sorry not exact) Froome puts in an attack that has him out of the saddle, distances Quintana and then Quintana rides back up to him no problem.  Lots of stuff on the radio and then talking.  At 3.1 Froome talks to him and then Quintana nods his head as if in agreement.  Froome definitely trying harder than Quintana when together but then Froome does have far more at stake.  Froome attacks again and Quintana just lets him go.

OK so the agreement they reached was who buys the coffee at the top.  I don't think so.
Apart from the fact that Froome doesn't really attack, compared with how he dropped Alberto, his cadence doesn't really change. And why would Quintana give away 30 seconds if he didn't need to?  If he could, he would have stayed on Froome's wheel, failing that, close enough to follow. Or do you think Quintana took an extra sum to finish out of shot at the finish line?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 15, 2013, 11:32
Oh the wind comes from a different direction depending on which rider you listen to. I think they are messing with peoples heads to be honest ;)

no, you just have to look on the map:

(http://i.imgur.com/EM02INf.png)

the wind came from the ~north, so there was a tailwind on the run in, not much wind for most of the early climb (because of the forest they ride through) and a headwind in the final.

so while being on attack most of the time Froome was riding into a headwind
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 15, 2013, 13:41
http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-there-can-be-spectacular-performances-without-doping


Looks like Greg is on the Sky payroll.  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 15, 2013, 14:31
no, you just have to look on the map:

(http://i.imgur.com/EM02INf.png)

the wind came from the ~north, so there was a tailwind on the run in, not much wind for most of the early climb (because of the forest they ride through) and a headwind in the final.

so while being on attack most of the time Froome was riding into a headwind

Except the TDF site had the wind direction shifting from the North to the North East for the climb itself.
Which means he had a bit of everything.
There is also a photo of the flags on the exposed top reaches, pointing up the slope, indicating a tailwind.
If the riders can't agree, I'd suggest the wind wasn't a massive factor one way or another yesterday.
Unlike in 2009, or 2000 for instance.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 15, 2013, 14:33
yeah, I had another look at the video footage, the route is winding up anyway, so it's changing all the time, but watching the flags it looks like it's a sidewind most of the time. But Greipel also said that the wind did not have any impact because there were that many people on the roads
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 17:15
Todays L'Equipe

French being Sarcastic?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 21:53
Brailsford offers to hand over data to WADA approved analyst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ay48ZWkoeHU
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 22:00
Its actually quite interesting. Brailsford asking the press, what could "we" do to prove we were clean.

The WADA idea is something some of us have been clamouring for, dont release data publicly, but give all teh data to someone with authority and credibility to examine and then report on.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 15, 2013, 22:22
Its actually quite interesting. Brailsford asking the press, what could "we" do to prove we were clean.

The WADA idea is something some of us have been clamouring for, dont release data publicly, but give all teh data to someone with authority and credibility to examine and then report on.

Is WADA going to call Sky's bluff and take it on then? That question is now burning like a dose of cystitis.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 22:46
Presser Transcript

Via the Daily Mail
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 22:54
Is WADA going to call Sky's bluff and take it on then? That question is now burning like a dose of cystitis.

Nope, theres no point asking WADA because everyones already decided that WADA wont be interested and DB was just saying it for the sake of it :rolleyes
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 22:54
wtf, we dont have a rolleyes smiley
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 15, 2013, 22:54
Nope, theres no point asking WADA because everyones already decided that WADA wont be interested and DB was just saying it for the sake of it :rolleyes

 :rolleye rolleye singular. :D

It could set an interesting precedent though, you know, a sort of working model example that they could iron out and later roll out to all the teams.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 22:55
How can you roll your eye? Thats ridiculous
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 15, 2013, 22:56
How can you roll your eye? Thats ridiculous

Hey, I don't make the rules around here. I just sweep up and make the tea.  :brzzzz  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 15, 2013, 23:03
Is WADA going to call Sky's bluff and take it on then? That question is now burning like a dose of cystitis.
Nope, it will take them four to decide on the protocols on handling the data.
And DB knows it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 15, 2013, 23:20
WADA respond.. they dont know

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15010/WADA-hasnt-yet-been-approached-by-Sky-over-data-offer-will-look-at-proposal.aspx

Its not in their usual remit, but if approached they think Howman would look at it and weigh up its merit.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 15, 2013, 23:25
Froome said post race that he told Quintana that if they work together quintana can go up in gc. Stage win not discussed.  I think Froome always wanted Ventoux win.
I'll have to dig up the video, but I could swear that I recall Froome saying that he asked Quintana to help him, which would also benefit Q's GC standing. And that he also offered him the stage win if they reached the end together.

Froome claims that he never "attacked" Quintana at the end, but rather that Quintana simply lost power and dropped off the back. At that point, Froome had to go for as much of a time adavantage as he could over the rest of the field, and the stage win just happened to be the frosting on the cake.

I'm pretty sure he did offer the stage win, but certainly not at the expense of losing time himself.

As I said, when I have time, I'll try to find that interview.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Slow Rider on July 15, 2013, 23:30
WADA respond.. they dont know

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15010/WADA-hasnt-yet-been-approached-by-Sky-over-data-offer-will-look-at-proposal.aspx

Its not in their usual remit, but if approached they think Howman would look at it and weigh up its merit.

I don't see anything on the rolleye(s) issue in there. When is the WADA going to finally take a stand on these issues that are crucial for the sport? We need leadership people, leadership!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 15, 2013, 23:31
WADA respond.. they dont know
What I don't get in all this, and what doesn't seem to be discussed, is that for the people clamoring for Sky to release their data, why on earth would they trust that data? If everyone thinks that Brailsford is behind a massive sham, then why would any data he releases be consider legitimate? Isn't that the vicious cycle that Sky may very well may be avoiding up to this point?

If you doubt Sky, why wouldn't you doubt their data? And then what would be the point of any of it?


Personally, I think Sky need to release Froome's birth certificate. I don't believe he was born in Kenya. I suspect that it was Hawaii or possibly the Philippines, but definitely not Kenya.  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 16, 2013, 00:44
...
The point I'm getting at is what does a clean champion look like?
...
I cannot answer that. Nor can I say with certainty what a doper looks like. But Ricco looked like a doper. Riis looked like a doper. Sayer looked like a doper, although I only saw stage highlights and did not get the full context of his performance. There was no evidence against them other than well, it just didn't look right. Of course, I don't know if Froome is doping, and I accept that he is the kind of talent that had JV salivating about his motor and potential. All this to say that there is nothing wrong with saying that you think something looks fishy based on sight and sight alone. That performance on Ventoux, in the context of all that I have seen and heard before, just didn't look right.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 16, 2013, 00:58
I cannot answer that. Nor can I say with certainty what a doper looks like. But Ricco looked like a doper. Riis looked like a doper. Sayer looked like a doper, although I only saw stage highlights and did not get the full context of his performance. There was no evidence against them other than well, it just didn't look right. Of course, I don't know if Froome is doping, and I accept that he is the kind of talent that had JV salivating about his motor and potential. All this to say that there is nothing wrong with saying that you think something looks fishy based on sight and sight alone. That performance on Ventoux, in the context of all that I have seen and heard before, just didn't look right.

as a random thought, would you have thought it was credible if there had been another rider next to him? or would that make both credible. So say Contador was riding better or Schleck and they were riding together to finish would that make it look more credible. So is Froome being punished for the lack of form of the others or would that just put him and the other rider in the same boat
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 16, 2013, 02:09
as a random thought, would you have thought it was credible if there had been another rider next to him? or would that make both credible. So say Contador was riding better or Schleck and they were riding together to finish would that make it look more credible. So is Froome being punished for the lack of form of the others or would that just put him and the other rider in the same boat
Good question. Certainly Froome's reputation (if that is a fair word) is not helped by the fact that he is currently an outlier, alone at the head of the peloton. But another rider would not necessarily have made it more credible. I didn't find Armstrong and Pantani credible when they raced on the same col. I didn't find Contador and Rasmussen credible in 2007. Piepoli didn't do Ricco any favours in 2008. I really want to add Contador/Schleck 2010 to this list, but they weren't quite as outlandish as the other performances. On the other hand, having Ullrich, Hamilton, Mayo, and Vino performing nearly at his level probably helped Armstrong look less alien in 2003.

I don't know that you meant "lack of form" to mean that the others didn't show up in their best condition, but in case you did - I'm not convinced that these guys are not in form. Contador might be showing us what we can expect from a talented rider who is not using oxygen vector doping. And to be clear, I do believe that Contador used these methods in previous years and I don't necessarily think he is riding 'paniagua' today.

In case I didn't clearly address the question - if another rider matched Froome on that blistering attack on Ventoux, and then stayed with him to the finish line, I would suspect that rider to be using doping products.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 16, 2013, 04:11
The biggest difference is probably preparation. If others showed up with equal preparation it would only serve to make them look worse than their history already implies.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 16, 2013, 09:37
Good question. Certainly Froome's reputation (if that is a fair word) is not helped by the fact that he is currently an outlier, alone at the head of the peloton. But another rider would not necessarily have made it more credible. I didn't find Armstrong and Pantani credible when they raced on the same col. I didn't find Contador and Rasmussen credible in 2007. Piepoli didn't do Ricco any favours in 2008. I really want to add Contador/Schleck 2010 to this list, but they weren't quite as outlandish as the other performances. On the other hand, having Ullrich, Hamilton, Mayo, and Vino performing nearly at his level probably helped Armstrong look less alien in 2003.

I don't know that you meant "lack of form" to mean that the others didn't show up in their best condition, but in case you did - I'm not convinced that these guys are not in form. Contador might be showing us what we can expect from a talented rider who is not using oxygen vector doping. And to be clear, I do believe that Contador used these methods in previous years and I don't necessarily think he is riding 'paniagua' today.

In case I didn't clearly address the question - if another rider matched Froome on that blistering attack on Ventoux, and then stayed with him to the finish line, I would suspect that rider to be using doping products.
...Like Quintana would have been had he not gone too early?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 16, 2013, 10:09
"I hope we won't have to wait 15 years to dig up the dead"

Stéphane Heulot, Sojasun DS, talked about the Ventoux stage in yesterday's Figaro:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/cyclisme/2013/07/15/02007-20130715ARTSPO00206-j-espere-qu-on-n-attendra-pas-15-ans-pour-deterrer-les-morts.php (FR)

"Jonathan (Hivert) was already bad at the start. He started with hot sweats on the bus. He had quite a day: he started, felt bad and was blown out but he came in within the time gap. He has to rest properly now. He'll be alright. You don't quit the Tour, the Tour throws you out. Brice (Feillu) was OK, his knee wasn't hurting, he just didn't have great legs. Maxime (Méderel) on the other hand did a really good final climb. 27th at 6'44" down on Froome. That's pretty good for a rookie but it's by the by. Because in front Froome delivered this huge hammer blow and there was a sense of déjà vu in it. Ridiculous. I don't even want to sum it up. It's a shame ... but there was a real awareness in the peloton. And so ... I hope we won't have to wait 15 years to dig up the dead. There wasn't even any intelligence in terms of the way it was done. He was on the phone on the whole climb. Some were saying he was going to break out singing. When you know how hard it is just to take a drink on the Ventoux ... That's enough. I'm fed up with it. I hope that Brice and Max can find a way through in the Alps."
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 16, 2013, 10:17
Strange comments as Froome looked on the rivet from the moment he attacked to the top. That grimace as he left Quintana didn't suggest singing to me. Also he clearly wasn't on his radio the whole way up.

But, of course, doubts from within the peloton have to be born in mind.

We'll see. If he's a cheat, I hope he gets caught.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jono L. on July 16, 2013, 11:28
In all this discussion, is there any mention of Froome at the Suntour in 08?

He sure pumped some good riders up mt buller
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 16, 2013, 11:32
what do you think about Froome Jono?  Whats your impressions here?

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 16, 2013, 11:42
I don't think I'd ever feel confident enough to say that definitively about any rider.
+1
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 11:45
what do you think about Froome Jono?  Whats your impressions here?

Jono has taken 18 minutes and counting to answer I call omerta  :niceday



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jono L. on July 16, 2013, 11:47
what do you think about Froome Jono?  Whats your impressions here?
In terms of his progression over the years I don't really find it that absurd that he could be doing what he is doing.

What gives me more concern are team dominate performances by SKY. That always rings more alarm bells for me.

I think we will know more when we get a look at climb times in the Alps
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 11:57
In terms of his progression over the years I don't really find it that absurd that he could be doing what he is doing.

What gives me more concern are team dominate performances by SKY. That always rings more alarm bells for me.

I think we will know more when we get a look at climb times in the Alps

How much weight has he lost in 5 years jono would you guess , or maybe you were not racing.

From Barloworld until now a high % I would guess
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 16, 2013, 12:03
I think there are for and against arguments for Froome, and curiously sometimes they are the same. I think some of the against arguments I've seen published on the Internet are ludicrous and need exposing, lest they add to the clamour of the Internet lynch mob. Some of the arguments are not ludicrous but need qualifying. For example Froome's career trajectory is cited as unusual. I'd agree....how many cyclists went to university?

That last point is not as flippant as it seems.

I struggle with this idea of diagnosis by appearance on a climb. I watched Pre-EPO racing in the 80's and I remember a fair few performances that looked like this years Ventoux. Remember, Coppi had a 20 minute lead. At the same time, I remember shouting at the TV when I saw Ricco and Piepoli showboating.

The thing is the arguments could be ridiculous, utterly fatuous and wrong, and yet the answer might be true.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jono L. on July 16, 2013, 12:40
How much weight has he lost in 5 years jono would you guess , or maybe you were not racing.

From Barloworld until now a high % I would guess

Looks a good 5kg lighter now

(http://www.cyclingforums.com/content/type/61/id/288132/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 12:44
Looks a good 5kg lighter now

(http://www.cyclingforums.com/content/type/61/id/288132/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL)

say we say 6.7 kgs lighter that would be 10% give or take scary really

mental reduced weights but producing more power = massive jump in watts/kg
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 20:02
Ok so a bit of news updates

DB says databases they have froome could have climbed ventoux faster

Kimmage saying no one in cycling understands what froome did on Sunday no one.

Walsh being with sky and acting as he has is obviously putting a strain on their relationship, he did not want to answer a question retaining to that

But did say froome maybe the greatest cyclist of all, time he doesn't know
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 16, 2013, 20:18
Transcript of Walsh on ITV which is already been wildly misquoted :D

Quote
Ive been with them 8 weeks. Since January in mallorca
I understand why people ask questions because of legacy of what I call the armstrong generation

Its a pity more questions not asked in 99, if more questions had been asked there would perhaps be far less questions of froome

there come a time when you got to say, weve looked at his guy, weve asked the questions, weve done digging abd there is nothing to find
or someone comes along and says this is what ive found
allegations have to be supported by evidence, armstrong was based on evidence, and I cant see a lot of evidence against froome

i tend to be on the side of believing in him

It would be lovely if the uci said dave we want your numbers, we will give them to experts to assess them, and deliver verdits
if the uci did that it would be a help, not just to the followers of the sport, to help them beleive
but of benefit to team sky, to have their numbers properly assessed
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 16, 2013, 20:22
I think that is fair enough by Walsh.

I also like the way Froome answered the TUE question in his post race interview. He doesn't have any TUEs for the TdF.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 20:25
I think that is fair enough by Walsh.

I also like the way Froome answered the TUE question in his post race interview. He doesn't have any TUEs for the TdF.

But there should have been a follow up question Tue's for the year and what for.

And before anyone says anything I think this info should be public for all riders what Tue's are being given out for what drugs and how long
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 16, 2013, 20:30
I don't agree to Walsh, performances like Froome's need to be questioned, not demonized, but questioned.

there is no evidence, that's true, but exactly for that reason questions needs to be asked, whether to Froome or to other people. How did they get evidence vs Armstrong back then in form of those witness statements and leaked prositive? Not by sitting at home and waiting
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 16, 2013, 20:31
But there should have been a follow up question Tue's for the year and what for.

And before anyone say I think this info should be publicnfor all riders
Fair enough, apparently Dave Brailsford agrees with you and said today on French TV that all TUEs issued to riders should be made public before a race.

The follow up question was about his treatment for Bilharzia, where Froome said he was last treated in Jan and named the drug used. His next check up is in a month.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 16, 2013, 20:34
Fair enough, apparently Dave Brailsford agrees with you and said today on French TV that all TUEs issued to riders should be made public before a race.

The follow up question was about his treatment for Bilharzia, where Froome said he was last treated in Jan and named the drug used. His next check up is in a month.

Better still and even better would be a uci website with all the details
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 16, 2013, 20:42


But did say froome maybe the greatest cyclist of all, time he doesn't know

That much is obvious.  If Froome is clean then  physiologically its not even close.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 16, 2013, 20:52
Strange comments as Froome looked on the rivet from the moment he attacked to the top.

Yet Bailsford says Froome could have gone faster.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 16, 2013, 20:58
Today's example of why climbing times, in isolation, are basically a load of poo:

Col de Manse
2013:9,5 km@5,2%
---19:16---average speed 29.58 km/h(Rui Costa)                                     

2011:9,5 km@5,2%---20:04---average speed 28.41 km/h(Contador-Evans-S.Sanchez)
---20:25---average speed 27.92 km/h(F.Schleck-A.Schleck-Voeckler group)

Remember, Contador attacked several times and actually created that gap.
So solo, Costa, 48 seconds faster, today on almost the identical course.

Doping or variables?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 16, 2013, 23:09
Looks a good 5kg lighter now

(http://www.cyclingforums.com/content/type/61/id/288132/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL)

5k seems like a lot when looking at this pic from 2008, no?
(http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/tour08/tour0817/2008_tour_de_france_stage_17_025_600.jpg)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 16, 2013, 23:12
My head is about to explode, so I need to unplug from all of this but...

Not sure if this has been linked or not. Froome interview from 2008 regarding doping.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-shocked-on-doping-in-team (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-shocked-on-doping-in-team)


By Daniel Benson in Paris Tour debutant Chris Froome is willing to speak his mind on the problems...

By Daniel Benson in Paris

Tour debutant Chris Froome is willing to speak his mind on the problems that dog the sport. As he lined up for the final stage to Paris the Kenyan-born rider gave his assessment of the storm that engulfed his Barloworld team after Moisés Dueñas was removed from the race before stage 11 after it was announced that he had tested positive for EPO.

"To me it's just so shocking," he said. "You always hear about doping scandals and see them in other teams. When that happens you're tempted to just turn away. But to have it happen in our team was such a shock. Moisés is a really decent guy, it's something I didn't expect from him. I've not spoken to him since and I don't think anyone on the team has, either."

When asked about the punishments cyclists should face, and in particular those faced by Dueñas, Froome paused before taking a line that many cycling fans would openly applaud. "I'm sure he's in enough trouble as it is and that he'll regret it for the rest of his life. There's already the possibility of a two-year suspension, a jail sentence and huge fine to pay and I hope he accepts that. I'm sure that he'll regret it for the rest of his life. If that's the only way it's going to stop guys doping then we should throw them in jail."

Froome himself can look back at a job well done. Finishing strongly in 16th place in yesterday's time trial, his main goals of gaining experience and making it to Paris have been achieved, giving Barloworld the right type of positive to finish on.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 16, 2013, 23:12
Didn't I already post a scrawny pic upthread?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/b92db9c95602ff5ba774d1d1969302a9/tumblr_mi7pso1f5Q1qacyk6o1_500.jpg)

80 year old man
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 16, 2013, 23:18
Is there some reason that Froome's 2008 16th place in the TdF final TT is mostly being overlooked?

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/tour08/?id=results/tour0820 (http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/tour08/?id=results/tour0820)

It would seem to be a pretty notable accomplishment for his first Tour, and certainly an indication that he had very serious TT potential.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: ibi ubu on July 16, 2013, 23:25
Never mind Geert Leinders or the weight issue, the Bilharzia thing is beyond suspect.

Bilharzia is common.  Detected when eggs pass through urine and feces - not detected by blood.

Wiki references a story that says Chris and his brothers were plagued by it growing up and it affected his first year of pro cycling.  The article in part interviews the Kenyan coach he worked worth before moving to SA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10144509/Tour-de-France-2013-the-incredible-rise-of-Chris-Froome-and-how-he-was-almost-killed-by-a-hippo.html

He claims that he received it in 2010?  And always has to be re-tested?  NO.  Take the medication and IT'S GONE.

The good news is that there is a readily available treatment. A drug called praziquantel is injected into the bloodstream and disrupts the parasite's tegument. The parasite is then destroyed.

http://www.escargot.ch/personel/schisto.htm

Odd how this disease effects red blood cells.  The perfect excuse when manipulation of the baseline is made.

DUDE needs to DO SOME 'SPLAINING.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 16, 2013, 23:29
Yet Bailsford says Froome could have gone faster.

True.

Maybe Brailsford is just trolling you  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 16, 2013, 23:30
No, 28. And your point is?

my point is that he looks incredibly different from Barloworld body weight which was being discussed upthread.

grrr
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 16, 2013, 23:50
Is there some reason that Froome's 2008 16th place in the TdF final TT is mostly being overlooked?

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/tour08/?id=results/tour0820 (http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/tour08/?id=results/tour0820)

It would seem to be a pretty notable accomplishment for his first Tour, and certainly an indication that he had very serious TT potential.

in hindsight, maybe, but in general more or less every rider who tries to save himself for a couple of days and goes full out in a final Tour de France time trial ends up quite high in the rankings because most of the other riders don't care anymore and just want to finish the Tour.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 17, 2013, 00:00
Today's example of why climbing times, in isolation, are basically a load of poo:

Col de Manse
2013:9,5 km@5,2%
---19:16---average speed 29.58 km/h(Rui Costa)                                     

2011:9,5 km@5,2%---20:04---average speed 28.41 km/h(Contador-Evans-S.Sanchez)
---20:25---average speed 27.92 km/h(F.Schleck-A.Schleck-Voeckler group)

Remember, Contador attacked several times and actually created that gap.
So solo, Costa, 48 seconds faster, today on almost the identical course.

Doping or variables?

Not exactly. First of all climb comparisons get used for MTF's, not for catergory 2 6% average hills 10k from the stage finish of a transition stage.


But anyway why shoulnd't Costa be faster than 2011? Everything about this TDF has been way faster than 2011. The speeds in the Tour in 2011 were the lowest since the epo era began.

By contrast this TDF ranks amongst the highest ever. The ttt was the fastest ever. Not just for the TDF but for any gt. You may say most ttts were longer than 25k but even if you only look at ttts that were 25k or under there have been 13 in gts since the turn of the century and this was the fastest of the lot, and one cant say wind was favourable because it was a circuit so it cut both ways.
 Martins tt was the 3rd fastest ever or some such. The stage on friday was one of the fastest ever. The stage on Sunday had the riders at the bast of Ventoux something like 1 hour ahead of the fastest estimated arrival. Thats before we even take a look at Froomes miracle ascents. There is a point where one cant just argue that the conditions were favourable. 1 stage maybe, 2. 3 if your pushing it. But a whole Tour?

Anyway, what your comparison doesn't show is that Costa did this climb full gas from the bottom tting his way up.  2011 was very different. The  attacks started later on in the climb and even from then on it was not an even pace but lots of attack and decelerate. Contador attacked 3 times coming back to a stand still on each occasion. What cracked the other gc riders were the constant accelerations to stay with Contador, especially the first one  where many had to  come from quite far back inside the peloton. The thing was a shock to everyone but Contador in the first place since it was supposed to be a nothing stage.

And Costa has every right to, based on his performances in the last 2 years be ranked as one of the best climbers in the world.


Now you may say racing situation is part of the flaw in comparing times. But we know that is not a flaw that exists for either Ax 3 or Ventoux since the climbing comparisons were not just numbers in isolation but looked at the respective attack points and so on. Both AX3 and Ventoux were raced quite similarly between Froome and Armstrong, with both attacking quite far out, both giving it everything, so a - but climbs can be raced differently, argument, doesn't cut as deep as you think in dismissing those comparisons since we know they were not raced so differently in those cases.

Thats why comparing MTF's is a totally different ball game to comparing times up a minor hill a bit from the finish. In the mtfs the gc guys generally go for it since there is no need to sustain the effort past the finish line.

MTF's throw out of the window a lot of the - what if variables you bring up. And when those variables do come up its pretty easy to tell (eg if 1 ascent has 10 gc guys finish together and another has them come to the finish in bits and pieces)  Thats why they are the ones that get compared.

 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Martin318is on July 17, 2013, 07:27
But having looked at his early performances 2008-2010 I didn;t look at them at them and think 'future GT winner' there. Maybe it's a good job I'm not running a cycling team. I could see Froome as being a guy who could win stages in a GT, mostly from being in a break and with a bit of luck crack the top 20 on GC, but winning GT's no way.

To be fair though when looking at this I am reminded that at roughly the same time I was looking at Andy and Contador (and several others) as both being near unstoppable GT machines and suddenly in the last year or so they're not.  I cannot help thinking that if they were both the riders they seemed to be, Froome would be fighting to keep up with them, not stomping away from them.

I'll admit though that at any time of any day in last week or so (months really) I would toss a coin to decide what I think on the general issue of Froome's performances vs his historical form...

Fence, meet Marty's arse.
Marty's arse, meet Fence
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 17, 2013, 08:13
that sums it up for me pretty well actually Marty.

I have said that I think Froome is pretty suspect ... but that is where the doubts that I do have come in.  We are comparing him to lesser quality performances and saying "if he can beat Contador by that much ..." and drawing conclusions - but its not really a good comparison.

The Contador of old would have wiped the floor with him, and we would be saying he is still an average bit-part maybe-top-20 GC rider.     Its only because the likes of Contador, Evans, Schleck etc are NOT the same that he is riding away from them. 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 17, 2013, 08:28
So, lets assume Contador, Schleck etc are now clean.

Are we saying that it is impossible for anyone to be better than them?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 08:43
that sums it up for me pretty well actually Marty.

I have said that I think Froome is pretty suspect ... but that is where the doubts that I do have come in.  We are comparing him to lesser quality performances and saying "if he can beat Contador by that much ..." and drawing conclusions - but its not really a good comparison.

The Contador of old would have wiped the floor with him, and we would be saying he is still an average bit-part maybe-top-20 GC rider.     Its only because the likes of Contador, Evans, Schleck etc are NOT the same that he is riding away from them.

I do not believe Contador of old would have wiped the floor

I also do not believe Contador is clean , as I said before the doping program has moved on and reduce the effect for AC in my opinion

Evans and Schleck most likely are at the end of their careers 1 definitely the other most likely

Is the pool of GC talent smaller or less strong than before, maybe the strongest challenger to Froome 2013 is Nibs 2013 , will 2014 be the same not sure, Quinn , Nibs, Froome will be the team leaders of 3 very strong teams , been a long time since we had 3 top challengers , usually 2 5 :* next year we will have 3 if all things are equal
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 08:47
So, lets assume Contador, Schleck etc are now clean.

Are we saying that it is impossible for anyone to be better than them?

no ofc not but when was the last time a clean rider was so dominate in ITT´s and Mountains ?

and that is the issue there is no point assuming riders are riding clean ie 100% of them because to look at history of cycling you would find that happened , never.

and then look at the last Grand Tour 2 riders from 1 team popped for EPO , 1 of the riders was meant to be a podium challenger , yet he was beaten by more than 1 rider on many stages , so assuming a clean peloton is a waste of time
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Martin318is on July 17, 2013, 08:49
No, that would be innacurately reversing the logic of what I said.

What I am effectively saying is that it is unreasonable to state that someone is doping just because they have beaten those two up a mountain (when the basis for that thinking is that they are both still doping and therefore going faster than a clean person could).

If we were to make the assumption that they are definitely clean now, then I guess I would say that it is entirely possible for another clean rider to beat a clean Contador and the scale of that beating is a grey area for me.  At the moment I would say that a number of riders can smack a clean Andy uphill.  Contador I am not so sure about...

This all leads back to my comment that toss a coin and it will tell you which way I am leaning at the moment.  The fence is quite comfortable given I have seen nothing that stands up as solid evidence one way or the other.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 17, 2013, 09:02
I am just not sure that it is possible for 1 rider to be able to match it on both the ITT and up a mountain (and be clean).

ITT is so specialised.  Tony Martin and the like, they spend a LOT of time being the absolute best at everything involved.  At those 'marginal gains' that make a difference in the TT.   They shape their bodies, their muscles, their position on the bike ... everything ... just for the TT.

Mountain climbing too is for a specific kind of rider.  The Quintana's of the world who are tiny and throw themselves up a mountain just by looking at it.

How can you split your time, your training, your body type and muscle development ... and still match the very best in the world at both at the same time.

GC riders, they have to be good at everything.  But they dont have to be the world champ at everything.   

Have we ever had 1 person who could match the very best in the world at both ... who was clean?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 09:05
I am just not sure that it is possible for 1 rider to be able to match it on both the ITT and up a mountain (and be clean).

ITT is so specialised.  Tony Martin and the like, they spend a LOT of time being the absolute best at everything involved.  At those 'marginal gains' that make a difference in the TT.   They shape their bodies, their muscles, their position on the bike ... everything ... just for the TT.

Mountain climbing too is for a specific kind of rider.  The Quintana's of the world who are tiny and throw themselves up a mountain just by looking at it.

How can you split your time, your training, your body type and muscle development ... and still match the very best in the world at both at the same time.

GC riders, they have to be good at everything.  But they dont have to be the world champ at everything.   

Have we ever had 1 person who could match the very best in the world at both ... who was clean?

and even the doping riders if true specialists but road for GC had issues ie Marco in ITT and Big Mig as a climber
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 17, 2013, 09:42
I agree about the specialisation. It has only been about 15 years or so that people have focused purely on the Tour, which is why the Giro/Tour double is seen as a virtual impossibility. Go back the same amount of time again and tour winners were winning Classics. Eddy won everything.

However, as Greg Lemond said this week, there are such things as exceptional legitimate performances. I think that if we deny that we are essentially sucking the beauty out of sport and it is time to turn off the tv. Sport is about exceptional performances, the history of cycling is steeped in them. If you don't want them, why are you watching?

How have we got to this point? This point where we are saying that the very thing for which we watch the sport is now the very thing that is indicative of cheating? Twenty years where all but a handful of Grand Tour winners have either been busted, or been implicated in doping. That has bred the cynicism, but cynicism it is and we have to acknowledge that.  I think that as spectators who frankly do not really invest much in the sport we can afford to suspend disbelief a little and accept that we might be slightly disillusioned a few years later if history repeats itself, but not being able to accept that means it is time to stop watching.

Certainly with the lack of anything other than a good performance as evidence. Other evidence, such as peloton rumours and so on does give us the right to raise a clamour. Pure cynicism does not. I do not accept that denouncing riders as cheats on the Internet, with the most spurious of half-understood evidence is "campaigning". It isn't, it's an Internet lynch mob akin to witch burnings of the Middle Ages.  The most amusing thing this week on the Internet was reading that Geert Leinders was involved in clinical trials of the Gas6. That rumour started to get legs until somebody pointed out that the Dutch document where this allegedly was reported said no such thing at all, merely that Leinders name was mentioned in connection to something else.

 I also think that it is naive to assume the motivations behind the cynics are necessarily pure and well-intentioned. Some of them are for sure generated by petty nationalist rivalries, just as much as some of the defenders may do so for nationalistic reasons.

Pressure on the authorities is a different thing. Asking questions is a different thing. I'm not ever going to state that Froome is clean, precisely because of what I've said above, but I am prepared to enjoy watching him race until I know otherwise, and I am prepared to examine any arguments made for and against him and try and form an objective opinion.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 17, 2013, 10:11
Not exactly. First of all climb comparisons get used for MTF's, not for catergory 2 6% average hills 10k from the stage finish of a transition stage.


But anyway why shoulnd't Costa be faster than 2011? Everything about this TDF has been way faster than 2011. The speeds in the Tour in 2011 were the lowest since the epo era began.

By contrast this TDF ranks amongst the highest ever. The ttt was the fastest ever. Not just for the TDF but for any gt. You may say most ttts were longer than 25k but even if you only look at ttts that were 25k or under there have been 13 in gts since the turn of the century and this was the fastest of the lot, and one cant say wind was favourable because it was a circuit so it cut both ways.
 Martins tt was the 3rd fastest ever or some such. The stage on friday was one of the fastest ever. The stage on Sunday had the riders at the bast of Ventoux something like 1 hour ahead of the fastest estimated arrival. Thats before we even take a look at Froomes miracle ascents. There is a point where one cant just argue that the conditions were favourable. 1 stage maybe, 2. 3 if your pushing it. But a whole Tour?

Anyway, what your comparison doesn't show is that Costa did this climb full gas from the bottom tting his way up.  2011 was very different. The  attacks started later on in the climb and even from then on it was not an even pace but lots of attack and decelerate. Contador attacked 3 times coming back to a stand still on each occasion. What cracked the other gc riders were the constant accelerations to stay with Contador, especially the first one  where many had to  come from quite far back inside the peloton. The thing was a shock to everyone but Contador in the first place since it was supposed to be a nothing stage.

And Costa has every right to, based on his performances in the last 2 years be ranked as one of the best climbers in the world.


Now you may say racing situation is part of the flaw in comparing times. But we know that is not a flaw that exists for either Ax 3 or Ventoux since the climbing comparisons were not just numbers in isolation but looked at the respective attack points and so on. Both AX3 and Ventoux were raced quite similarly between Froome and Armstrong, with both attacking quite far out, both giving it everything, so a - but climbs can be raced differently, argument, doesn't cut as deep as you think in dismissing those comparisons since we know they were not raced so differently in those cases.

Thats why comparing MTF's is a totally different ball game to comparing times up a minor hill a bit from the finish. In the mtfs the gc guys generally go for it since there is no need to sustain the effort past the finish line.

MTF's throw out of the window a lot of the - what if variables you bring up. And when those variables do come up its pretty easy to tell (eg if 1 ascent has 10 gc guys finish together and another has them come to the finish in bits and pieces)  Thats why they are the ones that get compared.

 Hitch: Maybe it's because we disagree on the bolded section, that we disagree overall.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 17, 2013, 11:22
I also think that it is naive to assume the motivations behind the cynics are necessarily pure and well-intentioned. Some of them are for sure generated by petty nationalist rivalries, just as much as some of the defenders may do so for nationalistic reasons.

I think so too. Although I'm British, I support all sorts of riders, and consider myself European. It's the same with football - I love good games, no matter who's playing. I love watching good, exciting bike racing. Stage 13 was the best stage in this race, no matter who won.

Pressure on the authorities is a different thing. Asking questions is a different thing. I'm not ever going to state that Froome is clean, precisely because of what I've said above, but I am prepared to enjoy watching him race until I know otherwise, and I am prepared to examine any arguments made for and against him and try and form an objective opinion.

There are lots of questions about Froome, principally about his performance relative to both current riders, and previous performances.

His competition is poor currently, perhaps because doped riders are trying to find ways of getting performance legally, or at least at much lower risk. It's possible, just, that Sky have spent their time in the past few years developing clean ways of improving performance, without wasting their time dabbling in illegal methods. It's possible, because Sky / British Cycling are immensely analytical, have huge resources, and are not steeped in cycling history which dictates *how* a race should be won, or *how* riders should ride on the bike. His 1,000 rpm cadence looked stupid, but seriously? If you want to accelerate uphill for a short time, select a low gear and peddle like crazy. Who's to say you have to get out of the saddle and "dance on the pedals" like Contador. Maybe they're doing that because of the huge psychological effect it has on a rider with you, struggling up a hill, to see someone move away from you at a rate of knots. We've seen riders suddenly crack, because they suddenly lose the ability to climb.

A lot of hoo-hah centres around comparing his times to those of previously-doped riders from old tours, and the misconception seems to be that performance cannot be increased over time. Why not?  If that were the case, we'd all still be riding on an espresso and a jam sandwich. Maybe the much-lampooned aggregation of marginal gains really does work? 0.2% from using your own pillow; 0.5% from some special nutrition products; 0.3% from a damned good sports psychologist; 0.1% from something else. That's what British Cycling have been doing on the track, where you are talking about fractions of a percent making the difference between a gold medal and not being on the podium.

Having said all that, I still don't know. I hope he's clean. If he gets popped, it would destroy British Cycling.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 11:42
inrng just tweeted this photo

Froome as an amateur , must have lost 15 kgs over the years 

(http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/791289286.jpg?1374056509)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 17, 2013, 11:49
Is that a total guess?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 11:50

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 17, 2013, 11:54
Is that a beer gut?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jono L. on July 17, 2013, 11:54
5k seems like a lot when looking at this pic from 2008, no?
(http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/photos/2008/tour08/tour0817/2008_tour_de_france_stage_17_025_600.jpg)
5kg easy,

look at the puppy fat arm and cheeks.

+ long peiods of energy deficit eats your bones away good and proper. Trust me on that one!  :bouaaaaah 

But yeah, solid speculation over odd photos on the net. We're not really going to get anwhere are we now? :yuush

All part of the fun :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 17, 2013, 12:14
We can't enjoy the tainted Tour after antics of Armstrong and his cheating comrades

 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2363539/Chris-Froomes-stunning-Tour-France-enjoyed-Lance-Armstrongs-cheating--Martin-Samuel.html)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on July 17, 2013, 12:44
Not really darkside-related, but anyway:
Is it just me or do the long, black sleeves of the Sky jersey (and shorts) make him look even skinnier?
That '08 Barloworld jersey covers almost nothing of the arms; the Sky jersey goes down almost to the elbows.

Another marginal gain?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 17, 2013, 14:21
the Sky jersey goes down almost to the elbows.
Another marginal gain?

You can bet that it's been thought about.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 17, 2013, 21:00
What I will say is that people saying we have to keep times in context are completely correct.

But at the same time if Froome is constantly beating and managing to post amazing times then there is obviously something there to be noted. I really liked what Lemond said, but at the same time you do have to ask yourself if you are at all surprised that the exceptionally legitimate performance came out of Sky?

That could be thought about two ways, either Sky are the ground breakers in the sport and so can product such performances.. or they are the ground breakers in doping and so could produce such a performance.

Anyways what is definite is that Lopez needs a good helping of whatever Froome is on atm.  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 17, 2013, 21:46
So Froome Dawg smokes the field, once again, but then claims to have been holding back during his TT!  :rolleye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwGO9nX2ojE&feature=player_embedded

Says he was "actually prepared to lose a little bit of time"  and that he "didn't want spend everything today and then be wrecked for tomorrow."

So how good is Chris Froome? Is he dominating this Tour without even having to go as deep as he can? Will we see him pushed to the brink on Alpe d'Huez? What does Chris Froome look like at 100%?

He practically claims the stage win came as a surprise to him. It reminds a bit of watching Usain Bolt thump his chest while slowing down at the end of his record-breaking sprint. I want to see what the absolute peak would look like. I thought we saw that on Ventoux, but then Brailsford tells as the Froome Dawg could've actually gone faster.

What to make of all it? It's almost as if he's unaware of his own abilities.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 18, 2013, 08:23
Is there an Alberto Contador thread somewhere on the forum? And I don't mean a fan thread, but rather one like this, where I can go and analyze the material his bib shorts are made of. And also some obscure fungi that grow only in Spain. All of which I'm sure will help me determine whether he is a lying doper or not. I really feel that it's unfair that Froome is hogging all the spotlight, AC deserves a little attention too.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 18, 2013, 08:31
Apparently some detailed analysis in Lequipe today. some french expert has had access to some sky data or something?

my french is not good enough to understand and looks like full article is not online yet
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 18, 2013, 08:36
Apparently some detailed analysis in Lequipe today. some french expert has had access to some sky data or something?

my french is not good enough to understand and looks like full article is not online yet

 I posted some stuff on this earlier, or at least I thought I had.

Anyhow:
Quote
the Inner Ring @inrng wrote:Sky release Froome's climbing data and power stats to L'Equipe who have numbers reviewed by @fredgrappe who draws four conclusions:
1. Froome's power curve* (W vs time) has a normal slope and his rides in the Tour are consistent with data from last 2 years
2. Sky have never measured his V02 max but Grappe says he must have a score close to the known physiological limits
3. his weight's been stable for races and
4. Grappe says he must have excellent powers of recovery. Data go from Vuelta 2011 to Mont Ventoux

*Curves comparing Froome's power output vs duration compared to Lemond and Armstrong. Froome and Lemond look very similar. Armstrong very different to them in that for the longer durations he could sustain a much higher power output - up to 10%, apparently.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 18, 2013, 08:41
This is exciting because the conclusions are potentially more global than just those for Froome.

With this data - which I daresay is still private despite this story - we could have an opportunity to see how close is Vayer's, Amattypyoraily's (sic) and Doc Veloclinic's self-generated guesswork to the real data.

How valid and useful is all that "pseudo-science" which has to deal with all those variables?

For me, that would represent a big leap forward in the debate.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 18, 2013, 08:46
Is there an Alberto Contador thread somewhere on the forum? And I don't mean a fan thread, but rather one like this, where I can go and analyze the material his bib shorts are made of. And also some obscure fungi that grow only in Spain. All of which I'm sure will help me determine whether he is a lying doper or not. I really feel that it's unfair that Froome is hogging all the spotlight, AC deserves a little attention too.

here you go Kablo   http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=81.0

for the record - Chris Froome thread currently = 385 posts.
Alberto Contador thread = 337 posts

the difference is because a lot of the AC stuff was prior to this forum starting up, otherwise the AC thread would be MUCH bigger. 

These days - there simply isnt too many who will argue that AC is clean, so there isnt a 100 point discussion about anything in relation to him.  Everyone agrees ... so no arguments.

There is a discussion every day in regards to Chris Froome because
a)   its current - he is the one dominating at the moment;    and
b)  there is doubt.  People do believe in him, and others dont.  That makes for discussion and analysis.  People look deeper into things because they are trying to support their argument.

Can we please not have these "why isnt there a thread on 'rider abc' or 'team xyz' like this?"   There are threads and discussions if people start them, and they continue if people participate in them.  If everyone already agrees ... then mostly there isnt a deep and long-reaching discussion.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 18, 2013, 08:46
this is the whole article, sorry, no time to translate:

Quote
« Ses performances sont cohérentes »

FRED GRAPPE a analysé le potentiel physique de Chris Froome durant ces deux dernières années et n’a relevé aucune anomalie.

PREMIER CONSTAT: SA PUISSANCE S’ÉMOUSSE NORMALEMENT
La relation entre la puissance et le temps est similaire à celle que l’on connaît et que l’on observe chez tous les coureurs dont on a établi le Profil de puissance record (PPR). Il montre par exemple une diminution significative et normale de la puissance de 60 watts (0,88 W/kg) entre des efforts de vingt et soixante minutes. Il faut savoir qu’en moyenne un coureur perd une cinquantaine de watts dans cet intervalle de temps. Le PPR de Froome établi sur deux ans ne semble montrer aucune anomalie dans sa structure fondamentale. En d’autres termes, ses données de puissance des deux dernières années sont cohérentes avec le profil qu’il présente. Les performances qu’il a réalisées sur Ax 3 Domaines et le Ventoux pouvaient être attendues en regard de son PPR. En deux années, son profil n’a pas changé. Il apparaît que le potentiel qu’il présente aujourd’hui est similaire à celui qu’il possédait en 2011.

DEUXIÈME CONSTAT: UN POTENTIEL AÉROBIE HORS DU COMMUN
La puissance maximale aérobie extrêmement élevée (effort sur 5 minutes) confirme qu’il possède un potentiel aérobie hors du commun, qui l’oblige à posséder une VO2max (laquelle n’a encore jamais été mesurée en laboratoire par son équipe) proche des limites physiologiques scientifiques connues. La puissance exceptionnelle qu’il est capable de développer durant un effort maximal de cinq minutes lui donne une certaine réserve par rapport aux autres coureurs. Cela va dans le sens des accélérations qu’il est capable d’effectuer dans le final des montées. Onpeut estimer que, par rapport à ses principaux rivaux, il possède une marge de 20 watts de puissance supplémentaire. C’est cette marge que l’on retrouve par exemple entre lui et ses principaux rivaux dans les montées d’Ax 3 Domaines et du Ventoux.

TROISIÈME CONSTAT: UN POIDS TRÈS STABLE
Son poids moyen sur les deux années est de 68 kg (le matin) avec des variations très faibles, inférieures à 900 grammes. Cela montre que la puissance qu’il développe depuis deux ans est relativement stable lorsqu’on l’exprime en watts par kilogramme (W/kg), indice très important dans la performance en montée.

QUATRIÈME CONSTAT: D’EXCELLENTES QUALITÉS DE RÉCUPÉRATION
Il est évident que, pour être capable d’exploiter un profil de puissance à quasiment 100 % de son maximum, il faut que Chris Froome possède d’excellentes qualités de récupération entre les étapes. Parce que si le niveau de fatigue s’accumule trop, il n’est plus possible d’évoluer à proximité de ses records.

Quote
La méthode décryptée

QUE MESURET-ON ?
L’étude du potentiel physique global d’un cycliste est possible à partir de l’analyse de la puissance qu’il développe lorsqu’il produit des efforts maximaux. La puissance qu’il développe, c’est ce qui lui permet de se déplacer grâce à la force qu’il applique sur chaque pédale en fonction de la cadence de pédalage (la vitesse à laquelle il tourne les jambes). Plus la puissance augmente et plus la force augmente. Mais comme cette dernière est limitée dans le temps, à un moment donné la fatigue musculaire limite la poursuite de l’effort. À l’inverse d’une voiture, avec laquelle on peut rouler à plein régime sur des courtes et des longues durées, le cycliste est obligé de trouver un régime moteur optimal pour chaque durée d’exercice. Ainsi, plus la durée de l’effort est courte et plus il est capable de développer un haut niveau de puissance. A contrario, plus la durée est longue (efforts d’endurance) et plus le niveau de puissance diminue.

QUELLE MÉTHODE GRAPPE A-T-IL UTILISÉE ?
Aujourd’hui, la plupart des coureurs possèdent un capteur de puissance monté sur le vélo, ce qui permet à l’issue de chaque course de télécharger les données mesurées très précisément. À partir des relevés fournis par l’équipe Sky (ils concernent des efforts considérés comme maximum et d’une durée comprise entre 5 et 60 minutes), Fred Grappe a établi son Profil de puissance record (PPR) depuis deux ans.

Quote
Hier aussi

AVANT D’ACCÉDER aux données fournies par l’équipe Sky, Fred Grappe avait estimé le potentiel de Froome à partir de son modèle de calcul, qui intègre des paramètres liés au coureur, aux conditions environnementales, au matériel utilisé et aux caractéristiques de la montée. En comparant les chiffres, il a pu établir que la marge d’erreur était de 2,5 %, soit une marge extrêmement faible. Fort de ce constat, il a étudié la première ascension de Froome lors du chrono d’hier. Et il a pu observer « que la puissance moyenne développée était encore une fois très bien intégrée dans son profil de puissance, et donc complètement attendue » .
]
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 18, 2013, 08:50
Here's today's L'Equipe article in rough English. Any mistakes are mine. Be sure to buy the newspaper. ;)

"His performances make sense"

FRED GRAPPE has analysed the physical potential of Chris Froome from the last two years and found no anomalies.

FIRST CONCLUSION: HIS POWER FALLS AWAY NORMALLY

The relationship between power and time is similar to what we know and observe among all the riders for whom we've established a Power Profile Record (PPR). It shows for example a significant and normal decrease in power from 60 watts (0.88w/kg) between efforts of 20 and 60 minutes. On average a rider loses 50W in this interval of time. Established over two years, Froome's PPR shows no anomalies in its fundamental structure. In other words, his power data for the last two years makes sense with the profile that he delivers. The performances that he achieved on Ax-3-Domaines and the Ventoux could be expected given what his PPR says. In two years, his profile hasn't changed. It appears that the potential that he shows today is similar to the one he had in 2011.

SECOND CONCLUSION: AN UNUSUALLY HIGH AEROBIC POTENTIAL

The extremely high maximum aerobic power (for an effort of 5 minutes) confirms that he has a higher than usual aerobic potential, giving him a VO2Max (which to date has never been measured in a lab by his team) close to the known scientific physiological limits. The exceptional power that he can deliver in the course of a maximal effort of 5 minutes gives him a certain reserve in comparison with other riders. That explains the accelerations that he can do towards the top of the climbs. We can estimate that, in relation to his main rivals, he has a margin of 20W of additional power in his favour. This margin is what we see in examples like Ax-3-Domaines and the Ventoux.

THIRD CONCLUSION: A VERY STABLE BODY WEIGHT

His average weight over the two years is 68kg in the morning with very small variations of less than 900g. That shows that the power that he's been able to develop in the last two years is relatively stable when you express that it in Watts per kilogram (W/kg), a very important measure in climbing performance.

FOURTH CONCLUSION: EXCELLENT ABILITY TO RECUPERATE

It's clear that, to be able to exploit a power profile at more or less 100% of the maximum available, Chris Froome has to have excellent recuperative abilities between stages since, if the level of fatigue accumulates too much, he would no longer be able to get close to his own recorded limits.

THE METHOD EXPLAINED

What do we measure?

The study of total physical potential of a cyclist is possible starting with the analysis of power that he produces when producing maximal efforts. The power that he produces is what enables him to move forward thanks to the force he applies on each pedal stroke in terms of the the pedalling cadence (the speed with which he turns the legs). The more the power increases, the more effort is required. Unlike a car, with which you can move at full gas on short and long durations, the cyclist has to find an optimal engine turnover for each duration of exercise. Thus, the shorter the duration of the effort, the most capable he is of producing a high level of power. At the same time, the longer the duration (endurance efforts), the more the power level diminishes.

What method has Grappe used?

Today, the majority of riders have power meters on their bikes, which enables the download of very precise data at the end of each race. Starting with the data handed over by Team Sky (containing efforts treated as the maxmimum and of a duration between 5 and 60 minutes), Fred Grappe has established Froome's Power Profile Record (PPR) for the last two years.

Also from yesterday

Before accessing data handed over by Team Sky, Fred Grappe had estimated Froome's potential using his own calculation method, which includes numbers linked to the rider, environmental conditions, equipment used and characteristics of the climb. Comparing the figures, he was able to establish the margin of error as 2.5%, a very narrow number. Using this conclusion, he studied the first climb by Froome in yesterday's time trial and he observed that "the average power produced was once again very much in line with his power profile, and therefore completely expected."
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 18, 2013, 08:59
I'll translate it now... please wait ... loading .... do not turn off your computer ...
Ok, I'll wait,

hmmmmm tap tap tap tap tap
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 18, 2013, 09:16
I can teach you french in the meantime, 5 VR$$ a lesson :D

but my word pool is very limited
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 18, 2013, 09:20
Loaded 100%...  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 18, 2013, 09:32
Quote
Also from yesterday

Before accessing data handed over by Team Sky, Fred Grappe had estimated Froome's potential using his own calculation method, which includes numbers linked to the rider, environmental conditions, equipment used and characteristics of the climb. Comparing the figures, he was able to establish the margin of error as 2.5%, a very narrow number. Using this conclusion, he studied the first climb by Froome in yesterday's time trial and he observed that "the average power produced was once again very much in line with his power profile, and therefore completely expected."

so does this mean that some of the power estimates that others have made in this manner are relatively correct?

I am not one for analysing power numbers - I know nothing about the science, so I dont pay much attention - but its interesting that he could basically estimate to that degree of accuracy.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 18, 2013, 09:42
No one can know, don't expect to see anything other than words.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 18, 2013, 10:08
here you go Kablo   http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=81.0

for the record - Chris Froome thread currently = 385 posts.
Alberto Contador thread = 337 posts

the difference is because a lot of the AC stuff was prior to this forum starting up, otherwise the AC thread would be MUCH bigger. 

These days - there simply isnt too many who will argue that AC is clean, so there isnt a 100 point discussion about anything in relation to him.  Everyone agrees ... so no arguments.

There is a discussion every day in regards to Chris Froome because
a)   its current - he is the one dominating at the moment;    and
b)  there is doubt.  People do believe in him, and others dont.  That makes for discussion and analysis.  People look deeper into things because they are trying to support their argument.

Can we please not have these "why isnt there a thread on 'rider abc' or 'team xyz' like this?"   There are threads and discussions if people start them, and they continue if people participate in them.  If everyone already agrees ... then mostly there isnt a deep and long-reaching discussion.

Thanks for the link :-) Was a genuine question, wanted to know if there was a non-fan AC thread. It's all good AG, I just want to make sure I keep the AC thread updated - Froome is not the only person in the TdF, the whole peloton is actual, and AC a top contender, he deserves some attention too.

Apropos everybody on here agreeing that AC is a doper, will those posts be on that link?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 18, 2013, 10:25
so does this mean that some of the power estimates that others have made in this manner are relatively correct?

I am not one for analysing power numbers - I know nothing about the science, so I dont pay much attention - but its interesting that he could basically estimate to that degree of accuracy.

What this tells us is that:

a) Grappe's own method is good. However I do not know what Grappe's method is and, perhaps more importantly, how it differs from those of Vayer-Portoleau, Amattypyoraily (sic) and Doc@Veloclinic

b) Froome's VO2Max is unknown. There are disagreements over how important this is, but it seems surprising that Sky has not tested it.

c) Grappe had two years' worth of data, including the 2011 Vuelta. Thus he has the complete picture of Interplanetary Froome but nothing from Froome's supposed fallow period prior to that.

d) Based on these numbers, Froome is able to achieve things that are humanly possible.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 18, 2013, 10:31
JV said today on twitter that he is not surprised that the Vo2 Max of Froome has not been tested for; saying that it is an outdated and not really very useful test.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Martin318is on July 18, 2013, 10:39
so does this mean that some of the power estimates that others have made in this manner are relatively correct?

I am not one for analysing power numbers - I know nothing about the science, so I dont pay much attention - but its interesting that he could basically estimate to that degree of accuracy.

Most power measurement systems are only claiming to be accurate to +/- 2% so you could say he did well or that its a coincidence that he got within 2% of the high side inaccuracy in the measured values.  I'd assume he did some good analysis to get where he did.

After all, if you go down the he was lucky route you'd have to get to a conclusion that his opinion doesn't mean all that much...
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 18, 2013, 10:44
Agreed Martin, the question also being as to whether he was more thorough than some of the other guys Larri quoted.
I would fancy he was, as this seems to be a very extensive study focused solely on Froome and just from how it comes across it seems to be conducted very professionally. Also, as Larri mentioned, he used 2 years worth of data which is probable a larger range than others used.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 18, 2013, 12:42
Thanks for the link :-) Was a genuine question, wanted to know if there was a non-fan AC thread. It's all good AG, I just want to make sure I keep the AC thread updated - Froome is not the only person in the TdF, the whole peloton is actual, and AC a top contender, he deserves some attention too.

Apropos everybody on here agreeing that AC is a doper, will those posts be on that link?

Do you want all of us to post like this " yes contador is a doper"?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 18, 2013, 13:05

Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 1h
Ai-je une seule fois évoqué le fait qu'il n'est pas dopé ? Les données analysées ne permet pas de le dire. Je dois rester très honnête...
Expand  Reply  Retweet  Favorite   More
 Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 1h
La question qu'il faut davantage se poser c'est plutôt de savoir quel était son profil avant 2011 ? Et là, je n'en sait rien...

Fred Grappe ‏@fredgrappe 1h
Quel intérêt de faire une fausse analyse ? J'ai analysé des données comme pour un autre coureur dans les règles de l'art avec objectivité.

https://twitter.com/fredgrappe
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 18, 2013, 13:18
Do you want all of us to post like this " yes contador is a doper"?

I'm asking where the posts are, I'm not asking you to post anything?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 18, 2013, 15:06
I'm asking where the posts are, I'm not asking you to post anything?

Who is defending him there? Does that not make it clear that we think he is a doper and a convicted doper.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 18, 2013, 20:42
Who is defending him there? Does that not make it clear that we think he is a doper and a convicted doper.

Hey, I don't deal in assumptions, did I
Quote
not make it clear
?

And what if I want to spoof this thread?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Drummer Boy on July 18, 2013, 20:44
And what if I want to spoof this thread?
And what if you want to just troll this thread into the ground?

Would you please just stop?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 18, 2013, 20:49
And what if you want to just troll this thread into the ground?

Would you please just stop?

Hmm, I don't think this thread needed my help into the ground, Drummer Boy, but from the swift reaction it is clearly very important to you. I don't think anything I've posted deserves this response from you, I think it is an overreaction. I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 18, 2013, 20:52
First thought when I read that Sky had released Froome's data was, "Excellent, good for them." Then I read that it was only data from 2011 - uh oh, that won't answer the question that everyone has been asking. When I read that the scientist was hand-picked and a bit controversial, also not good. I hadn't read about VO2 max not being a great indicator of potential, and really would have thought that a team that puts as much emphasis on performance indicators and statistics as Sky would have had their GC guys tested.

I might have read kablo wrong, but I thought she was asking a legit question. And yes, I would think that thread would contain posts about Bertie being dirty. It's a pretty widely-accepted premise by many VR members.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 18, 2013, 20:59
Wrt Froome's data, two comments. Firstly, I don't think it tells us the definitive we want to hear, and that is because I don't think it can.

Secondly, Froome only signed with Sky in 2010, so there won't be much historical data.

I'm enjoying the racing in the knowledge that results only really get validated after a decade or two.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 18, 2013, 21:37
If he really was bonking how much could he have lost, without them playing with the rules  one/two minutes to quintana/murito?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 18, 2013, 21:50
If he really was bonking how much could he have lost, without them playing with the rules  one/two minutes to quintana/murito?

According to froome himself, nothing. He said it doesn't make a difference if you have food or not at that stage.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 18, 2013, 22:01
I don't think there is much of a premise to say that he was not bonking to a degree because Froome would never in his right mind have incurred the wrath of the officials and risked whatever punishment they may possibly have thrown at him.

It simply is too risky to start throwing away the Tour at this point with daft moves like that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 18, 2013, 22:15
Do we know whether that stuff about the car not being available in the valley is true?

About the value of the drink and gels for Froome: according to Boardman, very little physical benefit. However that completely ignores the psychological effect of being able to do something to counteract the knock. If Froome had got himself into the mindset that he couldn't make it to the finish line without taking something, the chances are he would have lost a whole chunk more time. Self belief is a mercurial thing and top sportsmen often need a physical crutch to regain it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 18, 2013, 22:24
Agreed Captain Cav. You could see Froome was not comfortable, he was shouting in his radio much too much even for Froome Dog and his body language was telling. Also In the heat of the race I can just imagine the tension Portal and Porte much have been under as they suddenly envisage their whole Tour collapsing, so grabbing a gel from the car and giving it to Froome seemed like the only thing to do and indeed as you say that psychological boost may have turned out to be invaluable.

What I found itriguing about the whole affair was what Tuart posted in the Shoutbox.

Quote
"One moment, during the Alpe d'Huez stage, Corti called me back to the car to get more gels. I said, 'No, no. I am fine.' I just had one gel in my pocket. About four kilometres into Alpe d'Huez I blew completely and lost a hell of a lot of time. That hit home how important energy is, that showed me a lesson. He said, 'Why did you not come back? You needed about 10 gels, not one!'" ~ Nov '08

I wonder if Froome just started panicking when it all became a bit Deja Vu.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 18, 2013, 22:30
Do you want all of us to post like this " yes contador is a doper"?

I think Kabs the lack of people defending Alberto says a lot (Even his most ardent fans dont defend him).
Pop over to the alberto thread, but it will be fairly quiet as really since his ban theres not been much to say about him. Riis is far more interesting
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 18, 2013, 23:36
so grabbing a gel from the car and giving it to Froome seemed like the only thing to do and indeed as you say that psychological boost may have turned out to be invaluable.

we will see tomorrow I guess, if the other teams really believe it was just a hunger flat and don't attack him on the first climb, the psychological boost was enormous, indeed
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 19, 2013, 06:41
Some riders hate the alpe , others hate it less , I guess the physiological effects was important especially after the arm over the shoulder chat with Porte.  :D

The numbers thing yesterday have given me a bit to think about 're froome. I want to know more about his treatments, which are meant to be 1 offs but he gets them every 6 months.

But I still find the 2011 spike and now consistency odd, if he is the new lemond surely he would have done better , not winning as blood doping madness was still on going but top 30 and sometimes top 10.

Anyways off to ponder. Interesting times
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 19, 2013, 06:41
I am in 2 minds about the Gel thing

on one side, I think there are health concerns with restricting food and water to riders ...

But (and the more I think about it, the more on this side of the fence I am sitting) the rules are there for a reason.   Access to the total amount of water/food is not being restricted.  Only access to the team cars at the pointy end of a race.  This is because in the last portion of the stage - when the racing is clearly ON - it is dangerous to have riders dropping back to the cars, moving up through the peloton to get back to the front, team cars trying to move up etc.

Even on mountain stages ... it still is less dangerous if the riders are told to take what they need before they begin the final ascent.

If you dont have enough ... if your team mates dont have enough ... that is poor racing, poor judgement, bad management, whatever you like to call it.

The rules are there for rider safety.   To breach them is to compromise other riders safety.

As far as Froome suggesting that Porte should be the one with the penalty - that is incredibly poor form.   :hb    Definitely makes me think less of him.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 19, 2013, 07:32
As froome said rather than completely bad management it was down to an issue with their car so it was not with them at the bottom of climb (from memory this is not the first time those jags have broken down). I think he was feeling bad and suddenly remembered Tuarts advice from before and grabbed a gel.

yeah to say it was porte that did it was clearly a team thing but not sure they were ever going to believe that. do they have much freedom with punishments? as technically he did take food from porte so judges have freedom to say yeah well that came straight from car so sod off. and also that they can penalise him 20 seconds, when usually things like that end up being fines etc. i.e. they can realise that 20 seconds would mean a lot more to him than a fine but if it was someone in 90th a bigger fine may matter more.

strange thing is given how close it was to finish got to believe the results were more mental than physical surely? it probably kicked in while he was on the podium
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 19, 2013, 08:18
right so bad management / bad luck

I dont have a problem with the sanction - Froome made a choice, to take the food and take the sanction.  He had the time to spare :D

as far as the rules - they did the same to Gesink (or maybe it was Mollema ... one of the dutchies anyway) at the Tour de Suisse.  20 seconds and I think it was also 1,000 Swiss francs too.

Was on the second or third stage, when time meant yellow or not.

ETA : was Mollema - stage 2    http://inrng.com/2013/06/tour-suisse-stage-3-preview/
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 19, 2013, 08:37
Quote
might have read kablo wrong, but I thought she was asking a legit question

Thank you, you read it right.

I think Kabs the lack of people defending Alberto says a lot

You know, this is more about the random hate that gets spewed from time to time at certain riders, and that hate being justified by claims about times, climbs, and so forth, and people not seeing that what they post with utter conviction *could* be tripe. Sometimes the only way to make a point is to do the same thing with another random rider, to encourage to look from a different perspective.

My posts were hardly offensive, and I get overreactions like
Quote
What do you want
and
Quote
Will you please stop?
? I think I should save that last quote permanently and copy & paste it as needed, because it's actually a great response to some of the posts I see on here. Ridicule and be ridiculed, it's what makes the world go around *cue loony carnival music*
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 19, 2013, 12:34
(from memory this is not the first time those jags have broken down)

They should have used Skodas. Never broken down, according to their ads. They could have borrowed mine.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 20, 2013, 16:33
Biggest margin at a TDF since 2004.

Brunyeelsford is so right. This new clean era is one of small differences.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: August on July 20, 2013, 16:46
Would have been such a great Tour if it wasn't for Froomes dominance.  :brzzzz
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 20, 2013, 16:53
It was a favourable course.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 20, 2013, 17:04
It was a favourable course.

No nibali,Schleck coming back from injury, contador getting old, cadel already tired from The Giro, so the competition was weak.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 20, 2013, 20:34
Why can't you guys just be happy that cycling is cleaner now, so that a clean cyclist is able to beat the doped performances of the past. Sky are human. Froomedawg almost bonked on the Alpe and Porte had to go to the car and ride back up to the elite climbers with a gel for him. If Sky had somthing to hide they wouldn't release Froome's power data. If Berto had got hold of that the Tour would have been over. The Dawg has a huge VO2 max which Sky will no doubt release if they test it. Froome was always a rough diamond, he just took years to realise his true level as a GC rider. Look at Wiggins, now he has blossomed, who knows how many Tours he'll win.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: August on July 20, 2013, 20:44
Why can't you guys just be happy that cycling is cleaner now, so that a clean cyclist is able to beat the doped performances of the past. Sky are human. Froomedawg almost bonked on the Alpe and Porte had to go to the car and ride back up to the elite climbers with a gel for him. If Sky had somthing to hide they wouldn't release Froome's power data. If Berto had got hold of that the Tour would have been over. The Dawg has a huge VO2 max which Sky will no doubt release if they test it. Froome was always a rough diamond, he just took years to realise his true level as a GC rider. Look at Wiggins, now he has blossomed, who knows how many Tours he'll win.

The reason people call them borgs and aliens is because of how un-human Sky look in there performances.

And how is bonking proof of clean riding?  :wut
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 20, 2013, 20:54
A great win by Froome. Well deserved.

So glad Contador is off the podium. Convicted dopers and omertists have no place there.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: LukasCPH on July 20, 2013, 21:07
I'm not convinced Froome (and Sky) are dirty. Far from it.
I am, however, convinced that they do something different than other teams. Nutrition, training, extremely low-cadence accelerations, whatever - I don't know what it is, or if it's within the rules (it may well be). But I'd like to find out; and frankly, if it were as innocent as Brailsford & co. claim, why not tell the world?
They're hiding something. If that is because they're up to no good, or simply to protect the advantage they have over other teams, I can't know.

Why can't you guys just be happy that cycling is cleaner now, so that a clean cyclist is able to beat the doped performances of the past.
This makes little sense. Cleaner cycling now doesn't necessarily mean that clean riders now can beat performances by doped riders made earlier - in fact, logic would say that - all other things equal - it's the other way around. Which is why I say that Sky are doing something.

The Dawg has a huge VO2 max which Sky will no doubt release if they test it.
VO2 max is (according to Vaughters) are somewhat antiquated parametre. Garmin don't even test for it anymore.

Look at Wiggins, now he has blossomed, who knows how many Tours he'll win.
Wiggins. Exactly zero. He'll probably not even ride any GTs anymore.

Froome was always a rough diamond, he just took years to realise his true level as a GC rider.
You know, looking at Froome's riding style, I think he's still a rough diamond. Not as rough as in 2008 (when he bonked massively on Alpe d'Huez), but it still looks as if he's oblivious to many quirks of cycling. He almost bonked again on Alpe d'Huez, his climbing style is just plain ugly (and still somewhat ineffective, if you compare to Quintana - he's all over the bike), and today on Semnoz he didn't seem to know his own limits. Why accelerate away from Rodriguez & Quintana only to be dropped by the Colombian shortly after? If you're close to breaking, you'd be far better off just following others.
I'm almost afraid to see how good Froome would be if he had all these things under control.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 20, 2013, 21:08
@Joachim agree, totally inappropriate to have dopers on the Tour podium.

August, in a way Sky aren't human. Humans are always evolving and Sky are at the cutting edge of that process. Froome himself evolved from a mid pack no name to the best climber and TTer in the world, in a surprisingly short time. What I mean is they were vulnerable like everyone else,  the playing field was level.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: August on July 20, 2013, 21:32
@Joachim agree, totally inappropriate to have dopers on the Tour podium.

August, in a way Sky aren't human. Humans are always evolving and Sky are at the cutting edge of that process. Froome himself evolved from a mid pack no name to the best climber and TTer in the world, in a surprisingly short time. What I mean is they were vulnerable like everyone else,  the playing field was level.

And for me, that is very indicative that he is doing something that he isn't suppose to be doing.

I can see how Sky have been vulnerable at some times this Tour, but Froome has barely been vulnerable at all. The only time he has really been close to vulnerable was during his bonk on the Alpe, and he still put time into everyone but Quintana and Purito there. Plus I'm not sure that you can call it a "level" playing field when first place holds a 5 minute gap to 2nd.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 20, 2013, 21:35
I'm not convinced Froome (and Sky) are dirty. Far from it.
I am, however, convinced that they do something different than other teams. Nutrition, training, extremely low-cadence accelerations, whatever - I don't know what it is, or if it's within the rules (it may well be). But I'd like to find out; and frankly, if it were as innocent as Brailsford & co. claim, why not tell the world?
They're hiding something. If that is because they're up to no good, or simply to protect the advantage they have over other teams, I can't know.
This makes little sense. Cleaner cycling now doesn't necessarily mean that clean riders now can beat performances by doped riders made earlier - in fact, logic would say that - all other things equal - it's the other way around. Which is why I say that Sky are doing something.
VO2 max is (according to Vaughters) are somewhat antiquated parametre. Garmin don't even test for it anymore.
Wiggins. Exactly zero. He'll probably not even ride any GTs anymore.
You know, looking at Froome's riding style, I think he's still a rough diamond. Not as rough as in 2008 (when he bonked massively on Alpe d'Huez), but it still looks as if he's oblivious to many quirks of cycling. He almost bonked again on Alpe d'Huez, his climbing style is just plain ugly (and still somewhat ineffective, if you compare to Quintana - he's all over the bike), and today on Semnoz he didn't seem to know his own limits. Why accelerate away from Rodriguez & Quintana only to be dropped by the Colombian shortly after? If you're close to breaking, you'd be far better off just following others.
I'm almost afraid to see how good Froome would be if he had all these things under control.
You make some very good points there. I too am glad that obsessive focus on efficiency and a clinically strategic approach have given this team the edge they need to beat the times of the dirty era. The ultimate triumph of clean cycling?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 20, 2013, 21:39
And for me, that is very indicative that he is doing something that he isn't suppose to be doing.

I can see how Sky have been vulnerable at some times this Tour, but Froome has barely been vulnerable at all. The only time he has really been close to vulnerable was during his bonk on the Alpe, and he still put time into everyone but Quintana and Purito there. Plus I'm not sure that you can call it a "level" playing field when first place holds a 5 minute gap to 2nd.
Read more at http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17547_5792058,00.html#0RK46lGPOatsJq7J.99

Dave Brailsford also has a phrase which sums up his philosophy, and by which he is coming to be known: "The aggregation of marginal gains."
"The aggregation of marginal gains," is Brailsford's catchphrase. When he first explained it, he was discussing the thorny topic of doping. "My personal take on it is that a lot of the guys who dope actually use it as such a crutch that they stop doing other things," said Brailsford.

all these tiny gains can add up to large gain - potentially race-winning, or record-winning, gains.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: August on July 20, 2013, 21:47
Read more at http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17547_5792058,00.html#0RK46lGPOatsJq7J.99

Dave Brailsford also has a phrase which sums up his philosophy, and by which he is coming to be known: "The aggregation of marginal gains."
"The aggregation of marginal gains," is Brailsford's catchphrase. When he first explained it, he was discussing the thorny topic of doping. "My personal take on it is that a lot of the guys who dope actually use it as such a crutch that they stop doing other things," said Brailsford.

all these tiny gains can add up to large gain - potentially race-winning, or record-winning, gains.

Marginal gains like high cadence.  :D Basically the same stuff USPS would tell us to explain their inhuman performances.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 20, 2013, 22:30
A great win by Froome. Well deserved.

So glad Contador is off the podium. Convicted dopers and omertists have no place there.

:fp
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 20, 2013, 22:34
ALERT ALERT


 :niceday
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 20, 2013, 22:54
:admin

A handful of posts in this thread have been un-approved. Please consider what you have put in these posts and how it may develop into an argument.

Play Nice.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 20, 2013, 23:21
Read more at http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17547_5792058,00.html#0RK46lGPOatsJq7J.99

Dave Brailsford also has a phrase which sums up his philosophy, and by which he is coming to be known: "The aggregation of marginal gains."
"The aggregation of marginal gains," is Brailsford's catchphrase. When he first explained it, he was discussing the thorny topic of doping. "My personal take on it is that a lot of the guys who dope actually use it as such a crutch that they stop doing other things," said Brailsford.

all these tiny gains can add up to large gain - potentially race-winning, or record-winning, gains.

So all those riders who were superior to wiggins and froome all those years were doping?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 21, 2013, 00:20
So all those riders who were superior to wiggins and froome all those years were doping?

I have no idea.  :D Maybe they were all a myth.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 21, 2013, 01:00
In lots of ways, I just dont get the anger at Chris Froome.

So he is taking stuff he shouldnt, or at the very least on the leading edge.  Look over the history of the Tour ... look over the top 10 (well, 5 at least).  Do you see any saints there?     Maybe Quintana might get a pass as he is young (discussion for another thread) ... but the rest are all on the same path as Froome.

As far as his performance - whats not to like?  After the dour, defensive, boring Tours we have had recently ... we finally get a guy who WANTS to attack.  Who wants to ride to win the damn thing ... who takes it on and actually rides.

Whether or not he is a personal favorite, surely as fans of cycling we can appreciate his win?

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 21, 2013, 01:07
very interesting stuff in The Sunday Times from Walsh on Chris Froome and "Why I believe he is clean"

Quote
On the second rest day at the Giro d’Italia, I meet Richard Freeman, the team doctor, at a cafe in Bardonecchia. Freeman’s background is football, working for Bolton in the Premier League before accepting an offer from the British track cycling team and Team Sky. We have a coffee, go for a walk, talk for two hours and along the way he describes his reaction to Froome’s breakthrough performance at the 2011 Vuelta a Espana.

He knew Froome as a rider with great talent but whose good days were followed by bad ones. Then, at that Vuelta, three weeks, not one bad day and second place overall.

At first Freeman wasn’t convinced. “I was confused because Chris hadn’t performed with this consistency for the team and I wondered how he’d done it. Before I could be satisfied, I spent two weeks re-examining all of his blood samples from his two seasons in our team and looked at all the information in his biological passport.

“What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he’d done previously to see if there were changes. There weren’t. His blood values remained the same and whatever the reasons for him riding consistently in that Vuelta, in my opinion it wasn’t down to him doing things he shouldn’t have done.” Freeman’s admission of initial concern was reassuring. His desire to investigate even more so.

Brailsford puts it down to Bilharzia

This is very interesting:
Quote
MIDWAY through this Tour de France, I asked Sky’s chief doctor, Alan Farrell, about therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs)which, traditionally, have been one route taken by cyclists seeking unethical advantage. They claim a medical reason for needing a banned corticosteroid, persuade the team doctor to apply for it and try to beat the system that way.

“I’ve been with the team since April last year, almost 16 months. Applications for TUEs come from me and in my time, we have applied for two TUEs.”

I don't think this is a sign of rampant abuse

Walsh ends it with a powerful antidote to all the hate that Team Sky have been feeling on the road
Quote
As for the mob reaction on Thursday, it was a reminder of how Lance Armstrong was regarded. Once he was the most loved sportsman on the planet. Partly because of that betrayal, the mob was baying for Froome’s blood on the Alpe. They were wrong when Armstrong was winning. And they are wrong now about Froome.

History will correct this, as it did the Armstrong story.

Yeap, Walsh may be convinced but it is going to take years for the cycling fans to be 100% convinced...

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 21, 2013, 04:08
Why can't you guys just be happy that cycling is cleaner now, so that a clean cyclist is able to beat the doped performances of the past. Sky are human. Froomedawg almost bonked on the Alpe and Porte had to go to the car and ride back up to the elite climbers with a gel for him. If Sky had somthing to hide they wouldn't release Froome's power data. If Berto had got hold of that the Tour would have been over. The Dawg has a huge VO2 max which Sky will no doubt release if they test it. Froome was always a rough diamond, he just took years to realise his true level as a GC rider. Look at Wiggins, now he has blossomed, who knows how many Tours he'll win.

I remember a certain Texan bonking and look what history tells us about that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 21, 2013, 04:13
Marginal gains like high cadence.  :D Basically the same stuff USPS would tell us to explain their inhuman performances.

It was a very unsettling flashback every damn time I heard those idiots Liggett and Sherwen prattle on about Froome's cadence, and the benefits of the high cadence that he turns.

History has moved on and Bruyneel, Armstrong and the rest of USPS have seemingly been wiped from the collective memory banks.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Damiano Machiavelli on July 21, 2013, 04:20
Quote
As for the mob reaction on Thursday, it was a reminder of how Lance Armstrong was regarded. Once he was the most loved sportsman on the planet. Partly because of that betrayal, the mob was baying for Froome’s blood on the Alpe. They were wrong when Armstrong was winning. And they are wrong now about Froome.

History will correct this, as it did the Armstrong story.

This is not just a very poor analogy.  He has it exactly backwards.  It was the gullible, the naive, or the stupid who believed Armstrong, just like those who believe in Froome.  Those who were knowledgeable about cycling, those who could engage in critical thinking, or those who were cynical pointed to Armstrong's obvious doping, many right from the beginning.  In a bit of mind-boggling sophistry, Walsh is trying to equate the muppets who believed in Armstrong with those who don't believe in Froome, ignoring that those who called out Armstrong's doping are in most cases the same one who see the same signs in Froome's ridiculous performance.

OT: Did Sky shut down CN's forum?  The timing coincides with Sky's PR push for Froome.

 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: pedaling squares on July 21, 2013, 05:46
In lots of ways, I just dont get the anger at Chris Froome.

So he is taking stuff he shouldnt, or at the very least on the leading edge.  Look over the history of the Tour ... look over the top 10 (well, 5 at least).  Do you see any saints there?     Maybe Quintana might get a pass as he is young (discussion for another thread) ... but the rest are all on the same path as Froome.

As far as his performance - whats not to like?  After the dour, defensive, boring Tours we have had recently ... we finally get a guy who WANTS to attack.  Who wants to ride to win the damn thing ... who takes it on and actually rides.

Whether or not he is a personal favorite, surely as fans of cycling we can appreciate his win?
That reminds me of 1999 and subsequent years. After a huge scandal, many dopers backed it off. One did not, he even turned it up a notch. And he used his teammates to set him up for some pretty exciting attacks in the mountains. I appreciated his tactical awareness, I appreciated his skill on a bike, but I didn't appreciate the extra-terrestrial performances and the critique of other teams as less prepared, other riders as less professional, and other fans as jealous haters. Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 06:32
Have a read of what Rasmussen says....

....after Festina everyone ramped up the doping. It didnt scare people off, it let them know what products to take.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 06:35


This is not just a very poor analogy.  He has it exactly backwards.  It was the gullible, the naive, or the stupid who believed Armstrong, just like those who believe in Froome.  Those who were knowledgeable about cycling, those who could engage in critical thinking, or those who were cynical pointed to Armstrong's obvious doping, many right from the beginning.  In a bit of mind-boggling sophistry, Walsh is trying to equate the muppets who believed in Armstrong with those who don't believe in Froome, ignoring that those who called out Armstrong's doping are in most cases the same one who see the same signs in Froome's ridiculous performance.

Except in Walsh's case obviously. :D

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 06:36
I don't know if anyone had bring that up but Biltricide treatment is not a destructive medication. It does not kill everything; it only kills the adult worms. It does nothing like chemo, it does not kill your immune system. And the side effects are (as told on drugs.com) not devastating at all. Froome himself told that he couldn't even touch the bike for a week after the Biltricide treatment.

Quote
Praziquantel (the active ingredient contained in Biltricide) is generally well tolerated. Side effects are typically mild and transient and do not require treatment. The following were observed generally in order of severity: malaise, headache, dizziness, abdominal discomfort (with or without nausea), rise in temperature and, rarely, urticaria. Such symptoms can, however, also result from the infection itself. Such side effects may be more frequent and/or serious in patients with a heavy worm burden.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/biltricide-side-effects.html

Usually only one dose of Biltricide is enough to kill the worms. And it is known that corticosteroids are quite useful in order to ease the symptoms. But since SKY claim any of their rider do not use TUE..

Anyways, my point is somethings not adding up with Froome, SKY and their approach. Not only the Bilharzia but with their training and not-kept-promise of transparency. And I'm not buying it   :wut
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 06:47
Maybe, maybe not. We'll just have to wait, won't we. There are no prizes for "calling out" Grand Tour riders, and then giving oneself a self-congratulatory slap on the back when one is proved right. Its not exactly unlikely is it. In fact,  the braver thing to do would be to pick a rider and declare him clean.

Its like this sort of thing:

Quote
Those who were knowledgeable about cycling, those who could engage in critical thinking, or those who were cynical pointed to Armstrong's obvious doping, many right from the beginning

ALL the peloton were doping. The critical thinkers only spotted one of them (the one who was fitter than the rest of them) and missed the other 197 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 07:26
In lots of ways, I just dont get the anger at Chris Froome.

So he is taking stuff he shouldnt, or at the very least on the leading edge.  Look over the history of the Tour ... look over the top 10 (well, 5 at least).  Do you see any saints there?     Maybe Quintana might get a pass as he is young (discussion for another thread) ... but the rest are all on the same path as Froome.

As far as his performance - whats not to like?  After the dour, defensive, boring Tours we have had recently ... we finally get a guy who WANTS to attack.  Who wants to ride to win the damn thing ... who takes it on and actually rides.

Whether or not he is a personal favorite, surely as fans of cycling we can appreciate his win?

Exactly! It's called taking the mature view. Not everybody needs a supervillain. Nor a superhero.

Perhaps that's where all the hate comes from? Everybody wants a real *happy ending* just for once! I blame it on Hollywood, we've been trained to expect it. But I would expect more from some members on this forum - most of those posting have known this game for a long time. The game doesn't change? Seems like "fans" don't either.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 07:55
I think the point is we don't know he is doping. He has attracted the attention because he is putting in a good performance.

So, what are we saying? Get rid of good performances? In the bigger picture this doesn't make sense.

I agree Kabloemski. We have to take a mature view, and be prepared to be mildly disappointed in a decade or so.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 08:35
If, in order not to be disappointed again, I have to take a 'childish' view, then so be it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 08:46
If, in order not to be disappointed again, I have to take a 'childish' view, then so be it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

Were you disappointed when Contador was caught doping?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 21, 2013, 08:50
If, in order not to be disappointed again, I have to take a 'childish' view, then so be it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

And that is a major issue

People would rather not be fooled so froome is doping in their minds.

But if he is not then surely they are fools again ? ( not saying anyone , but florry bought up a great point I have been thinking about , hence the quote )

Hence why the 3rd alternative is a good path , discuss evidence and be sceptical, change your views depending on the evidence watch cycling as the sport review info after stages and races

Is tricky though
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 08:55
Just some guy, I don't see the difference between my approach and the 3rd alternative :lol
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 09:06
Cheating in sport....

Not doping, but other forms of cheating in other sports. Diving for penalties, scratching the ball in cricket, tripping somebody up in a 400m race, doing an Onishenko in fencing..

All of these things create outrage and debate, some of them are definitive and provable, some of them come down to an interpretation of the rules. But all of them are different to doping.

The problem with doping is you cannot prove a negative. There can always be accusations that untestable products are being used, or tests fooled.

The implications of that need to be thought through.

Its very easy, with doping, to point the finger without any evidence.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 21, 2013, 09:29


This is not just a very poor analogy.  He has it exactly backwards.  It was the gullible, the naive, or the stupid who believed Armstrong, just like those who believe in Froome.  Those who were knowledgeable about cycling, those who could engage in critical thinking, or those who were cynical pointed to Armstrong's obvious doping, many right from the beginning.  In a bit of mind-boggling sophistry, Walsh is trying to equate the muppets who believed in Armstrong with those who don't believe in Froome, ignoring that those who called out Armstrong's doping are in most cases the same one who see the same signs in Froome's ridiculous performance.

OT: Did Sky shut down CN's forum?  The timing coincides with Sky's PR push for Froome.
I really don't think that is true.

I see a lot more fence sitting this time round. Logically people who had the success with Armstrong and called him out will remain cynical and call out Froome. But at the same time there are also now plenty of experienced people in the sport who are supporting Froome, Walsh is an example and of course he has nationality bias and his employers must be considered, but he is risking his reputation. Basically the current state of affairs with Froome isn't as black and white as before, it is not only the gullible and naive who believe in him.

On this forum alone you can see that, did anyone apart from a tiny minority believe in Armstrong? But Froome after all is an entirely different matter with opinion much more widely divided.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 09:41
If, in order not to be disappointed again, I have to take a 'childish' view, then so be it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

Same here. I know how I've suffered for the past months, I am not going back there. Once you believe without questioning, you surely will be pulled into the black hole of despair. At least that's what happened to me after LA. Years of joy, excitement and defense and now what? 10 years of emptiness. No way I will be living through that road again. I've learnt the hard way but I did eventually. I have my suspicions with a bunch of valid indications.

I know it is important not to jump to conclusion without solid evidence in any case of life, not just cycling. But that was exactly what had been done for LA case. And remember, what brought down LA was not the positive test results. He was exposed with confessions, investigations etc. Sometimes you just need to adjust your point of view for the greater good, now the best suited point of view, for me, is to suspect. Not to wait until somebody gets fed up and confess. What cycling needs is people to dig deeper. Peloton is far away from being clean. It will never be all clean, there will always be cheaters who will cross the red line, who will be beaten by their ambitions. What's important is to ask questions, to make people uncomfortable.

Not just go on to the press conference and say "Hey Froomey, are you doping?" This is not the question that matters, what is important is follow-up questions which no one seems to be asking properly. If Froome is clean, than Brailsford is doing no good for him. All DB doing is to let suspicions grow.

Requesting a WADA expert personally or on behalf of a team? Please, Brailsford was very well aware that WADA will decline such request. He knew that L'Equipe will jump to that set of data, which is very insufficient. Having Grappe to analyze these? Even worse. I have utmost respect to Grappe, his scientific work and capability (if that's the right choice of word). But is he not on active duty under FDJ? How can we possibly expect an unbiased approach, or more correctly, a fully honest analysis? Is he not the one that gave green light to LA back in 2005 with the same identical phrases? "On the edges of physiological limits but very well possible with humanly efforts"

None of these are giving me a viable explanation for the performances of SKY as a whole. Besides, what is it with British cycling so sudden? No offense, I am not mentioning this on a national ground I have nothing against British people (and this is so sad that I feel the need for such an explanation but this is a global problem).

In 2009, a Britain based team was set with goal of "clean British Tour champ in five years." And in three years span, they did it in two years in a row. 2012 route was like designed to make Wiggins win. Next year, Tour will start in Yorkshire.

I see all this as a new era. LA was the new face of clean and science-based cycling after Festina scandal. Now after LA scandal, SKY is the new face of clean and science-based cycling. Back in the time, US was the new big market for the road cycling. Now as the LA castle is down, a new big market has emerged for the road cycling in Britain.

I saw under the Athletics thread The Hitch wrote;

Usain Bolt is a £100 million a year business.

No one is ever going to sabotage that.  His sponsors could each offer about £5 million to cover up a positive test and still come out in profit.

I am not giving this quote in order to accuse SKY or somebody else. I hate money to be the center of everything but that's the way it is. We cannot ignore that. Cycling needed that fresh support after LA and US, now here is SKY and British cycling. And we all know what happens when it comes to money, Machiavelli is the man of the moment. Anything is okay to get where you want to get.

Until every single piece of data is released to and analyzed by different experts, from experts like Fred Grappe inside the community, to people like Ross Tucker who are independent, I will have my suspicions.

Because now I know that back in the day all those attacks on Sestriere, every single wattage in ITTs and every single duello on Ventoux are nothing but illusions. And surpassing those performances with clean training and humanly efforts in such a short time (2.5 half years, let's say) is just not easily believable.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 09:57
If, in order not to be disappointed again, I have to take a 'childish' view, then so be it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....

Florry, my post is aimed at folks that get a bit over the top when they post, I'm not saying it's immature to dislike Froome, I'm saying it's immature to spew hate at riders, and also feel that certain riders seem to be fair game, and others not.

For the record - I think they probably all dope - even my dear Andy *sniff* - point is I won't defend him to the death, I'll just know that it is because I like him, that I like him, not because he's clean. If I admit to myself that I like/dislike riders for other things - not whether they dope, or not - well then I gotta be mature enough to know that I can't exactly attack other people for having their own personal preference.

Anyway, this whole convo can keep going until the cows come home - the reason why I decided to have my say, is because some people who post can sometimes be harsh to others who post the same stuff as they do - except they tend to react only when it's their fave under discussion - I just want to make sure if there's going to be that sort of thing going on, that I too have my say - why on earth should a handful of folks think they rule the roost?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 10:22
I really don't think that is true.

I see a lot more fence sitting this time round. Logically people who had the success with Armstrong and called him out will remain cynical and call out Froome. But at the same time there are also now plenty of experienced people in the sport who are supporting Froome, Walsh is an example and of course he has nationality bias and his employers must be considered, but he is risking his reputation. Basically the current state of affairs with Froome isn't as black and white as before, it is not only the gullible and naive who believe in him.

On this forum alone you can see that, did anyone apart from a tiny minority believe in Armstrong? But Froome after all is an entirely different matter with opinion much more widely divided.
But Froome is at a different stage in his career. Where was public opinion on Armstrong when he was winning his first Tour.

An interesting question for me is what happens next? Froome has said he wants to win seven Tours, but I somehow don't think he'll dominate for that long.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 10:27

But Froome is at a different stage in his career. Where was public opinion on Armstrong when he was winning his first Tour.

An interesting question for me is what happens next? Froome has said he wants to win seven Tours, but I somehow don't think he'll dominate for that long.


Froome hasn't said he wants to win seven tours.

But, I agree, I don't think he'll be dominant for years. I think he will win more grand tours but he isn't invulnerable.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 10:33
Ok lets say he wants to contend six or seven Tours.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 10:35
Ok lets say he wants to contend six or seven Tours.

That magic conotation-heavy number seven  ;)

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 10:40
Ok, lets say he wants to contend about six Tours.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 21, 2013, 10:41
But Froome is at a different stage in his career. Where was public opinion on Armstrong when he was winning his first Tour.

An interesting question for me is what happens next? Froome has said he wants to win seven Tours, but I somehow don't think he'll dominate for that long.
Froome may be at a different stage in his career but cycling is Post the Armstrong era and I think that makes all the difference when it comes to the levels of cynicism to be expected.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 10:47
Ok, lets say he wants to contend about six Tours.

As I said, I agree with you. It all hangs on his team, if Porte goes it'll be a different outlook.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 10:55
I think the point is we don't know he is doping. He has attracted the attention because he is putting in a good performance.


Since you are speaking for "us" I'll say a sentence for "you".

You know very well that the case against froome goes well well beyond "oh he put in a good performance".
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 21, 2013, 10:58
Since you are speaking for "us" I'll say a sentence for "you".

You know very well that the case against froome goes well well beyond "oh he put in a good performance".
In defence of Joachim he qualified it saying why he has attracted attention, that he is putting in a good performance is the primary reason that Froome is being focused on rather than others.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 11:07

ALL the peloton were doping. The critical thinkers only spotted one of them (the one who was fitter than the rest of them) and missed the other 197  
:rolleye

Yeah. Poor lance. Only person ever attacked for doping in the 2000's
not his fault he was "fitter" than everyone else.

And of course no proof is required to say that everyone was doping. For froome yes, but for other riders, no.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Damiano Machiavelli on July 21, 2013, 11:07
I really don't think that is true.

I see a lot more fence sitting this time round. Logically people who had the success with Armstrong and called him out will remain cynical and call out Froome. But at the same time there are also now plenty of experienced people in the sport who are supporting Froome, Walsh is an example and of course he has nationality bias and his employers must be considered, but he is risking his reputation. Basically the current state of affairs with Froome isn't as black and white as before, it is not only the gullible and naive who believe in him.

On this forum alone you can see that, did anyone apart from a tiny minority believe in Armstrong? But Froome after all is an entirely different matter with opinion much more widely divided.

This is revisionist history.  The "experienced people in the sport" supported Armstrong.  The riders, the team managers, the race organizers, the commentators, the news reporters, they all cheered him on.  They built the myth,  They fell over themselves to portray him as the savior of the sport in 1999.  They parroted the fanciful explanations for his domination.  They even welcomed him back in 2009.  The muppet on the street can be forgiven for believing Armstrong's lies because there was near monolithic support for those lies from the gatekeepers the public relies on to form its opinions.  The non-believers began as a few people on the Internet who were marginalized and ridiculed by an army of true believers.  Those believers were always able to point to the opinion of the "experts" who "knew" the sport.  The questioning Armstrong began with people looking at him and saying his results did not make sense; it was suspicious that a one day rider who had never shown any talent as a GT contender would in the his late twenties suddenly become the best climber and best time trialist in the sport.  It began with people scoffing at the excuses and cover-stories that Armstrong used to explain his results.  It took ten years for the casual fans to begin questioning the myth.

What we see with Froome is a replay of what happened with Armstrong.  The difference is that the believers are largely jingoistic Brits and Brit wannabes.  They are a mirror image of the worst American Armstrong fans, who boosted their own egos with nationalistic garbage about how their man used uniquely American traits to train harder and smarter than everyone else.   The rest of the world went down that road in the past with other riders, sometimes multiple times.

Walsh equating those who question Froome with the sheep who believed in Armstrong does not even make sense.  The two groups have completely different mindsets.  It is a conscientiously crafted attack on everyone who questions the improbability of Froome suddenly discovering that he can cleanly challenge the climbing speeds of the best of the best during the blood doping era. 

Even the man Sky chose to give Froome's post-transformation data writes that Froome must have a VO2Max near the limit of what is humanly possible.  This is the official excuse of the Froome defenders: It's possible.  But none of experienced people in the sport are asking the obvious questions: How is it that someone with a physiology near the limit of what is humanly possible was not able to capitalize on it as an amateur and early pro?  Anyone who has trained and raced knows rider development does not work the way Froome and Brailsford would have you believe.  Those with big engines stand out from the first time they swing a leg over a top tube.  It takes very little training reach a large percentage of your capabilities.  The gains from training are an asymptotic curve.  The largest gains come early and easily.  Froome is currently rocking a VO2Max of ninety or so.  He should have dominated amateur racing.  Even as a neo-pro in the EPO era he should have been a force.  Instead he was a nobody.




Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:11
Since you are speaking for "us" I'll say a sentence for "you".

You know very well that the case against froome goes well well beyond "oh he put in a good performance".

You don't 'know'.  Only Froome can know, at present.

The case against Froome is what has been discussed ad nauseam. It hasn't gone anywhere because it doesn't have legs.

Even if Froome does prove to have been doping, it doesn't mean the the arguments presented here and elsewhere have any merit. Mere coincidence.

Post  a valid argument and I'll be right behind it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 11:14
In defence of Joachim he qualified it saying why he has attracted attention, that he is putting in a good performance is the primary reason that Froome is being focused on rather than others.

No he most definitely did not say that. You just made that jump all by yourself.

There is a tremendous difference between saying that someone has attracted attention and saying that someone has attracted attention instead of others.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:19
:rolleye

Yeah. Poor lance. Only person ever attacked for doping in the 2000's
not his fault he was "fitter" than everyone else.

I'm afraid you are reading things into my post that just aren't here.

Quote
And of course no proof is required to say that everyone was doping. For froome yes, but for other riders, no.


The French senate are about to release the '98 samples.

Besides there is mountains of anecdotal evidence from riders as to the total or near total spread of doping during that era.

As yet there is no anecdotal or otherwise evidence against Froome. Spurious and easily deconstructed arguments aren't evidence.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 11:21
You don't 'know'.  Only Froome can know, at present.

The case against Froome is what has been discussed ad nauseam. It hasn't gone anywhere because it doesn't have legs.

Even if Froome does prove to have been doping, it doesn't mean the the arguments presented here and elsewhere have any merit. Mere coincidence.

Post  a valid argument and I'll be right behind it.

Let's see. 80% of cycling fans surveyed in Denmark say they think froome doped. Lequipe has insinuated it a few times. Rasmussen ricco and Frei have all come out to say you can't believe him. When kimmage was on Irish radio his interviewers were nodding along with him about how sad it is that doping is back.  On the cycling forums in the cycling countries - Italy, spain, Norway absolutely no one believes. Even the journalists who are paid to defend froome ask him questions, compare him to Armstrong.

Yep, no legs.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:22
You don't 'know'.  Only Froome can know, at present.

My dear friend Joachim. I used that argument in defense of AC a few days ago. You laughed at me. Now here you are, using my argument. What happened during those days?

Can I laugh at you now?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 11:24
Where did bro deals last post go? Why, cos he said jingoistic brits? Why not delete the 1 or 2 words that you don't like rather than delete the whole post?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:27

Let's see. 80% of cycling fans surveyed in Denmark say they think froome doped

Idle gossip on internet forum and attention-seeking journalists trying to generate scandal does not equal evidence.

Your argument is akin to saying that sh1t tastes great because 60 billion flies can't be wrong.

I can see you hold your views vehemently. I trust that your motivations are genuine. I just don't agree that opinion equals fact, especially when it comes to villifying somebody in public and anonymously.

Like I said, post some evidence (not internet opinions) or a valid argument, and I'll be right behind you.

That day might come but it isn't today.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:28
My dear friend Joachim. I used that argument in defense of AC a few days ago. You laughed at me. Now here you are, using my argument. What happened during those days?

Can I laugh at you now?


Alberto tested positive
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Damiano Machiavelli on July 21, 2013, 11:30
I guess I am done here.  flipping ridiculous.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:32

Alberto tested positive

You can't know if Alberto used doping. Only Alberto knows.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:34
You can't know if Alberto used doping. Only Alberto knows.

I'll take his positive test and two year doping ban as an indication that he did .
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:35
Idle gossip on internet forum and attention-seeking journalists trying to generate scandal does not equal evidence.

Your argument is akin to saying that sh1t tastes great because 60 billion flies can't be wrong.

I can see you hold your views vehemently. I trust that your motivations are genuine. I just don't agree that opinion equals fact, especially when it comes to villifying somebody in public and anonymously.

Like I said, post some evidence (not internet opinions) or a valid argument, and I'll be right behind you.

That day might come but it isn't today.

Valid arguments?

He is beating dopers's climbing times. His team worked with a doping doctor. Brailsfraud, Froome and Kerrison's stories contradict each other.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:39
I'll take his positive test and two year doping ban as an indication that he did .

I'll take the reasoned decision as an indication he didn't.

You are constantly on about Contador being a convicted doper. We all know a positive test isn't necessarily proof of doping and more importantly a negative test isn't necessarily proof of cleanliness. So your argument is not valid.

Froome is imo a doper. The fact that (for as far as we know) he hasn't failed a test (yet) doesn't make him any cleaner.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 21, 2013, 11:39
Damiano - I am just looking at your post now.  Not sure why it was deleted ... may have been accidental.

I will have a look and see if I can reinstate it ...


ETA : your post has now been restored. 

guys - in future, if you have an issue with something - all of us respond much better to polite and friendly questions ... we are human and make mistakes.  We are happy to look at things too ... but be nice to me.  its been a long day   :(
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:43
Where's Froome's positive test and two year ban, then? Or the traces of plasticizers in his blood? Or his deleted race wins?

There aren't any. That is why only Froome can know.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:48
Cyivel's post with dim's quote hits the nail on the head. There is no evidence for neither Froome nor Contador. Only suspicion and circumstancial evidence. That is why imo, one isn't better than the other.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 11:53
Cyivel's post with dim's quote hits the nail on the head. There is no evidence for neither Froome nor Contador. Only suspicion and circumstancial evidence. That is why imo, one isn't better than the other.


...oh, and a doping ban. Don't forget the doping ban.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 21, 2013, 11:56

...oh, and a doping ban. Don't forget the doping ban.

Did you actually read dim's quote?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 21, 2013, 12:14
Where's Froome's positive test and two year ban, then? Or the traces of plasticizers in his blood? Or his deleted race wins?

There aren't any. That is why only Froome can know.

this conversation appears to be going around in circles.

Joachim - there IS no "evidence" of that nature - if there was we would not be having this conversation.

The only "evidence" available is what has been discussed.  It is peoples opinions about what those things mean that is evaluated by fans in order for them to form opinions about whether or not he is doping.

His history, his performance, what he has said in the media ... all of these things form part of it, and they HAVE been stated.  Lots of times.   Asking again and again is disrespectful of other members of this forum and will be considered trolling.

In addtion - belittling and heckling people because of their analysis of that isnt helpful.

Everyone else - just because Joachim has a different opinion to you, doesnt make him automatically wrong or give you a reason to harass him.   If you cant be polite, or dont wish to restate your arguments again, walk away. 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 12:25
imo, one isn't better than the other.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 12:26
but be nice to me.  its been a long day   :(

Awww :hug
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 12:30
this conversation appears to be going around in circles.

Joachim - there IS no "evidence" of that nature - if there was we would not be having this conversation.

The only "evidence" available is what has been discussed.  It is peoples opinions about what those things mean that is evaluated by fans in order for them to form opinions about whether or not he is doping.

His history, his performance, what he has said in the media ... all of these things form part of it, and they HAVE been stated.  Lots of times.   Asking again and again is disrespectful of other members of this forum and will be considered trolling.

In addtion - belittling and heckling people because of their analysis of that isnt helpful.

Everyone else - just because Joachim has a different opinion to you, doesnt make him automatically wrong or give you a reason to harass him.   If you cant be polite, or dont wish to restate your arguments again, walk away.

Nice one, totally agree.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 12:33
Idle gossip on internet forum and attention-seeking journalists trying to generate scandal does not equal evidence.

Your argument is akin to saying that sh1t tastes great because 60 billion flies can't be wrong.

I can see you hold your views vehemently. I trust that your motivations are genuine. I just don't agree that opinion equals fact, especially when it comes to villifying somebody in public and anonymously.

Like I said, post some evidence (not internet opinions) or a valid argument, and I'll be right behind you.

That day might come but it isn't today.

Actually there are plenty of valid indications that I cannot list them here right away but here are some that bugs me most.

1- Stories about Biltricide treatment are not consistent with it's prospectus side effects.

2- Brailsford has been saying two things while trying to "prove" that cycling is clean;
i. Mountains are not won by minutes anymore, only seconds separate the winner and the second
ii. You don't see cyclists make long and repeated attacks, times are not that fast anymore.


Froome past Porte by 51 seconds and Valverde by +1' on Ax3-Domaines
Froome's attack to Contador on Ventoux last 1'38'' up until he reached Nairo. He then did two more attacks to Nairo.
And he also passed several known doper's times.

3- After the Ventoux stage, Froome told he did not do any specific high cadence training, next day Kerrison told they did special interval trainings.

I can get controversial by stating Kimmage's firing from Sunday Times, Sunday Times being Murdochs' and David Walsh is being employed by Times, Wiggins rejected Kimmage's company back in 2012 and now Walsh is with the team etc etc.

I wish there were more "attention-seeking journalists" aside from Kimmage and Walsh back in the day, maybe we wouldn't have waited for 10 years for things to unfold.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 21, 2013, 12:34

Nice one, totally agree.
Tony is so kool
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 21, 2013, 12:41
I just dont care if someone is doped.
On group ride guy told me that he heard from local pro Acqua&Sapone rider that Froome could not even suck wheel in peloton before 4 yrs ago.
He could be rider for local amateur team :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 12:46
A below average rider gets sick, stays out for about a year or two, turns back stronger than ever.
Does it ring any bells? Anyone remember this story?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 12:47
Actually there are plenty of valid indications that I cannot list them here right away but here are some that bugs me most.

2- Brailsford has been saying two things while trying to "prove" that cycling is clean;
i. Mountains are not won by minutes anymore, only seconds separate the winner and the second
ii. You don't see cyclists make long and repeated attacks, times are not that fast anymore.



Let's take one point at a time and start with the mountains...

Brailsford is right. None of the mountains were won by Froome by minutes. Ax3=50 seconds, Ventoux=29 seconds

Seconds not minutes. Where the third, fourth, fifth, one hundred and ninety-seventh riders came in is not relevant to Brailsfords quote.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 12:58
Let's take one point at a time and start with the mountains...

Brailsford is right. None of the mountains were won by Froome by minutes. Ax3=50 seconds, Ventoux=29 seconds

Seconds not minutes. Where the third, fourth, fifth, one hundred and ninety-seventh riders came in is not relevant to Brailsfords quote.

It's either you did not understand my point or you are amazingly good at pretending to be.

So, aside from the mountains, that 5 minutes gap in GC does not mean anything to you and it is one of the miracles of SKY's scientific training programs.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 21, 2013, 13:01
There is undoubtedly parallels which can be drawn between Chris Froome and Lance Armstrong.
Does that condemn him? No it certainly does not.

Froome's dominance and unbelievable performances are the standout factor for me.

The other primary factor for Froome is his rise from nowhere. It it is something to consider, but I have never been overly concerned about that for two reasons.

One because I do think the OP of this thread does explain it well, though I understand how it may not be sufficient for everyone.

And two because if Froome was the lowest of the low then how comes he is now the highest of the high? He may be a great responder but that he gives him only a certain edge. Showing how he is heads and shoulders above everyone else now, how about if theoretically he was not on PEDs most people agree that the levels of drug taking is lower than what it was in the Armstrong era so would he around the same level.. as Purito.. ok lower then? Which would then still make him seem suspicious when he is not actually taking anything, yet people would nevertheless accuse him because of his remarkable rise...


There are lots of other secondary factors, errors which can picked up when cross referencing interviews but they are human errors generally and though they do give cause to be suspect I have a feeling you could uncover similar errors with nearly every cyclist in the professional peloton. They are free to be discussed and they are intriguing, but I don't think they have the power to sway people either one way or the other.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 13:28
So lets see. Bro Deal makes a perfectly fine post, one of his first on the forum and it  is immediately mysteriously deleted, while others around him are left untouched. This obviously causes him to leave as it shows him that he and his opinions are totally unwelcome.

Then after he has predictibly left, as anyone would, then his post is reinstated with a - gosh i dont know how that happened note. But the discussion has moved onto the next page so no one now see it anyway.  And he has already left. So by now it does not matter.

Meanwhile Joachim who has the highest posts deleted per posts made ratio in the forum history, been insulting people from the moment he joined and is once again doing his usual tactic of  refusing to adress any of the points directed at him, instead repeating the same points designed to antagonize, over and over again, him, he is welcome to stay.

BTW why was Bro deals post deleted. I know "cops like to cover for other cops" but was it this coincidental mysterious accidental deletion or did one of the posters with a delete button in their armory not like the opinion the post expressed?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Francois the Postman on July 21, 2013, 13:28
One day I will get why people think there can only be one reasonable way to look at a situation that is full of personal personal judgement calls about the value of facts and circumstantial evidence, and the importance of 'facts' in the greater scheme, theirs.

I have heard people argue all sorts of positions, with various degrees of success, but it's the actual discussion I find interesting.

Usually if you start listening, you will find another pov that also is held genuinely, and with passion. On the whole, it happens much more often that I disagree with someone, but surely can understand where they are coming from, and why they come to their pov. It doesn't happen often that I find people who are so irrational tone-deaf that it isn't even worth listening to their argumentation. If I conclude someone must be tone deaf to arguments, I often overlooked the option that it was me who wasn't working hard enough to understand them, rather than the other way around. On the cycling forums I have been I have found very few people not worth my time of day, even in very unexpected corners. But often it took patience, time, and above all willingness to discover the ins and outs of it.

I like Florry's 'Fangirl' drive as much as I appreciate Joachim's engaged voice on this forum. I'd happily sit down for a day and figure out what on earth made them pick cycling as a good sport to get hooked on, and how they see issues and riders and races that are part of the greater cycling story. They are both passionate and spirited.

You would expect that conversations between all of us in this thread, a conversation about the hot topic of the day between fans of the sport would be utterly fascinating. Please keep it that way, and avoid this becoming more about 'being right' then explaining why you have settled on a particular angle. Or why some aspects convince you more, in this case, under these circumstances.

 I find it fascinating how people are dealing with the whole doping issue at the moment. Attitudes are all over the spectrum, for obvious reasons. And with obvious friction where polarised opinions meet. In general, I quite like that we have people who can't stand Froome, and people who love him, and people who aren't phased one way or the other.

I am also intrigued that we have people who have completely loved this tour, possibly for the same reasons that other people are all but done with cycling, also because of this Tour. Why is that? Why did their coin flip differently?

Why I come here, is to enjoys other people's enthusiasm, and find out where they come from. And to get news and info. I hope I will never stop to hear why some team or some rider enthuses them, or why they just cannot stand rider x. Pet loves, pet peeves, pet hates. Fans and sage observers.

We're all opinionated gits, and good on us. And one day you'll all come round to my pov, given enough time ;)

But in the meantime, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the other person must be nuts for seeing the same thing exactly the other way, and start to dislike their participation for it.

This Froome topic can be handled two ways, and only one of those is toxic to the overall atmosphere here.

Quiz each other for sure. But the question 'why do you think that?' is endlessly more interesting than 'why are you so blind that you cannot see it my way?', or questioning each other's reading abilities'. You're all sane folk with daft opinions about something. I think I have yet to meat a single person who has a totally of beliefs and attitudes that actually adds up to something that is even close to 100% consistent.   

There are a lot of factors, and a long long history, coming together on the eve of Froome's TdF victory. And pretty much everyone on this forum will have had a very personal route to this moment in time, from a particular spot on this planet, that will colour their perception of this accomplishment too.

And how and why I enjoyed this Tour, and what and why I think of Froome is guaranteed to be slanted differently than all other povs here.

But please keep showing an interest in other people's genuinely held beliefs about likely doping use, or the way they chose to apply 'the facts' to how they enjoy the sport, rather than knock them for not accepting your convictions for being the better one. If you can't convince your audience by stating your case, your case has probably more (equally) relevant angles, than it has to you personally.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 21, 2013, 13:40
Hitch - as I said before I do not know why DM's post was removed.        Our usual protocols of what we do before removing a post were not followed ... so I am assuming it was removed in error ... but until all mods have been on line to state that, its only an assumption.

When I logged on, I saw yours and DM's posts and looked into it.  I posted on the thread to say that is what I was doing ...

I reinstated the post as I could not see any issues with it, and edited my post on the thread to say that.  I have also pm'd DM to apologise.     I am not actually sure what more I can do here ... 

If you want to discuss the points that he made ... feel free to quote it and bring it back to this page.   Complaining that we made a mistake isnt really helping the situation.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 13:47
most people agree that the levels of drug taking is lower than what it was in the Armstrong era so would he around the same level.
ANd here we go again with this "most people agree" nonesence.  3 meaningless words masquerading as backup.

This is not the first time you've used it to backup an opinion you coulnd't find any justification for holding. I remember you using it also to say Dombrowski is clean something like "most people agree the young americans are clean", or words to that effect.

I pointed out to you then and on other occasions why this is not a real argument. If you disagree with me, fine explain to me why general perception matters one bit as to whether something is true or not. but you never did give a response, you just ignore my protests and continue using the same line.

In circles higher than professional cycling, no one would EVER get away with - "most people believes" as an argument. It simply is not.  It means nothing. Most people agreed that Lance was clean. Not that long ago most people thought that God created man on the 6th day rather than a product of a billion years of evolution.   Even in the present most people agree that football and tennis are clean sports yet we all here know this to be total horsesh*t and that not a single football fan would stand a chance in a discussion on the issue with someone who has so much as read the dpping in soccer blog.   

Now, you can say that cycling is cleaner now than in the armstrong era because the times are slower up climbs or because allegedly teams no longer do blood bags openly on buses or any other arguments you think that opinion is backed up by,  but if you want to present a side of the story make the effort   to offer real back up.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 21, 2013, 13:52
I really don't think that is true.

I see a lot more fence sitting this time round. Logically people who had the success with Armstrong and called him out will remain cynical and call out Froome. But at the same time there are also now plenty of experienced people in the sport who are supporting Froome, Walsh is an example and of course he has nationality bias and his employers must be considered, but he is risking his reputation. Basically the current state of affairs with Froome isn't as black and white as before, it is not only the gullible and naive who believe in him.

On this forum alone you can see that, did anyone apart from a tiny minority believe in Armstrong? But Froome after all is an entirely different matter with opinion much more widely divided.

This is revisionist history.  The "experienced people in the sport" supported Armstrong.  The riders, the team managers, the race organizers, the commentators, the news reporters, they all cheered him on.  They built the myth,  They fell over themselves to portray him as the savior of the sport in 1999.  They parroted the fanciful explanations for his domination.  They even welcomed him back in 2009.  The muppet on the street can be forgiven for believing Armstrong's lies because there was near monolithic support for those lies from the gatekeepers the public relies on to form its opinions.  The non-believers began as a few people on the Internet who were marginalized and ridiculed by an army of true believers.  Those believers were always able to point to the opinion of the "experts" who "knew" the sport.  The questioning Armstrong began with people looking at him and saying his results did not make sense; it was suspicious that a one day rider who had never shown any talent as a GT contender would in the his late twenties suddenly become the best climber and best time trialist in the sport.  It began with people scoffing at the excuses and cover-stories that Armstrong used to explain his results.  It took ten years for the casual fans to begin questioning the myth.

What we see with Froome is a replay of what happened with Armstrong.  The difference is that the believers are largely jingoistic Brits and Brit wannabes.  They are a mirror image of the worst American Armstrong fans, who boosted their own egos with nationalistic garbage about how their man used uniquely American traits to train harder and smarter than everyone else.   The rest of the world went down that road in the past with other riders, sometimes multiple times.

Walsh equating those who question Froome with the sheep who believed in Armstrong does not even make sense.  The two groups have completely different mindsets.  It is a conscientiously crafted attack on everyone who questions the improbability of Froome suddenly discovering that he can cleanly challenge the climbing speeds of the best of the best during the blood doping era. 

Even the man Sky chose to give Froome's post-transformation data writes that Froome must have a VO2Max near the limit of what is humanly possible.  This is the official excuse of the Froome defenders: It's possible.  But none of experienced people in the sport are asking the obvious questions: How is it that someone with a physiology near the limit of what is humanly possible was not able to capitalize on it as an amateur and early pro?  Anyone who has trained and raced knows rider development does not work the way Froome and Brailsford would have you believe.  Those with big engines stand out from the first time they swing a leg over a top tube.  It takes very little training reach a large percentage of your capabilities.  The gains from training are an asymptotic curve.  The largest gains come early and easily.  Froome is currently rocking a VO2Max of ninety or so.  He should have dominated amateur racing.  Even as a neo-pro in the EPO era he should have been a force.  Instead he was a nobody.

I 've just logged on , DM post was deleted , no idea how it happened , it may have been missed , here it is.

If people have issues please pm the staff or use the moderators thread to attempt to keep this thread on topic.

Also can we please stop the person attacks.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 13:56
It's either you did not understand my point or you are amazingly good at pretending to be.

So, aside from the mountains, that 5 minutes gap in GC does not mean anything to you and it is one of the miracles of SKY's scientific training programs.

I'm afraid you are moving the goalposts.

You quoted Brailsford saying mountain finishes would be won by seconds. I've shown you that he was right, this years mountains were won by seconds.

Now you are changing it to GC. You didn't quote him talking about GC, you quoted him talking about mountain finishes.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 21, 2013, 14:07
I stopped at Axel Merckx' team being clean.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 14:21
ANd here we go again with this "most people agree" nonesence.  3 meaningless words masquerading as backup.

This is not the first time you've used it to backup an opinion you coulnd't find any justification for holding. I remember you using it also to say Dombrowski is clean something like "most people agree the young americans are clean", or words to that effect.

I pointed out to you then and on other occasions why this is not a real argument. If you disagree with me, fine explain to me why general perception matters one bit as to whether something is true or not. but you never did give a response, you just ignore my protests and continue using the same line.

In circles higher than professional cycling, no one would EVER get away with - "most people believes" as an argument. It simply is not.  It means nothing. Most people agreed that Lance was clean. Not that long ago most people thought that God created man on the 6th day rather than a product of a billion years of evolution.   Even in the present most people agree that football and tennis are clean sports yet we all here know this to be total horsesh*t and that not a single football fan would stand a chance in a discussion on the issue with someone who has so much as read the dpping in soccer blog.   

Now, you can say that cycling is cleaner now than in the armstrong era because the times are slower up climbs or because allegedly teams no longer do blood bags openly on buses or any other arguments you think that opinion is backed up by,  but if you want to present a side of the story make the effort   to offer real back up.

Hitch, we all make an effort to stay calm and not use this confrontational style - calling people's posts nonsense - it's harder to stay calm and civil than crack and be sarcastic. Every time I see one of your posts I am HIGHLY tempted to reply to you in the same way. I do NOT want to back down from this. And then the moderators are going to have to step in again. But if you're going to dig in your heels, so will I.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 14:25
" most people agree" as an argument is nonesence. There is being polite and there is being ridiculous. There was no insult in my post no flaming or trolling. Nothing wrong with it. I don't see your problem.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 21, 2013, 14:30
Good afternoon guys.

I appreciate this is a divisive topic, and honestly, most people have made their minds up either way if Sky are doping or not, but lets keep it civil. When posting remember that not everyone will have the same point of view, nobody is right, nobody is wrong, we all just have different opinions, by the same token, remember that just because someone has a different view to you there is no need to either mock or ridicule their opinion. Every opinion is valid as another.

Several of you will have noticed posts "unnaproved" by the moderation team. The mods here only ever delete a post as a very last resort, and they only edit a post, as a very last resort. This forum does not need heavy handed moderation, but if your post is unnaproved there is either content the moderators found unsuitable, or another member reported. If this is the case please just take a look at your post and edit it if in retrospect you understand why it was unnaproved.

Lastly, lets all remember, that once we step outside of the "sensitive topics" most of us get along very well, in shoutbox, on twitter, sure we have our differences, but we all have one thing in common, we love the sport. Lets try and remember that.

Dave
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: vecchias on July 21, 2013, 14:36
I'm afraid you are moving the goalposts.

You quoted Brailsford saying mountain finishes would be won by seconds. I've shown you that he was right, this years mountains were won by seconds.

Now you are changing it to GC. You didn't quote him talking about GC, you quoted him talking about mountain finishes.

No, I am not. I didn't want to argue about those seconds. I just asked your opinion about the GC time gaps, regardless of Brailsford quotations. (I think I just misspelled there, oh and again)

Because this year's time difference is one of the largest in recent years. When you compare with late 90s and 2000s every other larger time gap "achieved" by LA, Ulrich and Pantani. There is no 5-min gap in post-LA era. Last year's ~3min (if I'm not mistaken) and this year's ~5min GC gap are all very suspicious if we are to talk about so-called clean era.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 21, 2013, 14:36
" most people agree" as an argument is nonesence. There is being polite and there is being ridiculous. There was no insult in my post no flaming or trolling. Nothing wrong with it. I don't see your problem.

1 - actually I did think that lots of people agreed that there was less drug use in the peloton now.  Pretty sure we have a couple of threads about it actually.   Maybe that needs to be re-looked at now that the Tour is over ... but its a debatable point - not something to ridicule someone over.

2 - Kabs point was about your tone Hitch.  You are pretty heated about this and it comes across as aggressive and confrontational.    For the most part, I actually agree with your basic opinion ... but if you are trying to convince people that your way of seeing things is the right way ... insulting them isnt the way to do it.       (and yes - calling someones post 'nonsense' is fairly insulting to my mind)     

Disagree with Froome (and Joachim for that matter) all you like - god knows I do :D - but there is a respectful way to do it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 21, 2013, 14:45
On the plus side, we have the 98 tour positives coming up soon to distract everyone :woohoo
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 21, 2013, 14:47
The point for me is how many times do you want to say state your opinion using different words or sentences?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Francois the Postman on July 21, 2013, 14:49
The point for me is how many times do you want to say state your opinion using different words or sentences?

;) guilty as charged
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 14:49
No, I am not. I didn't want to argue about those seconds. I just asked your opinion about the GC time gaps, regardless of Brailsford quotations. (I think I just misspelled there, oh and again)

You asked my opinion about the GC time gaps after I challenged you on your quoting of Brailsford. I take it you now accept that Brailsford was proved correct when he said that mountains will not be won by minutes??

Quote
Because this year's time difference is one of the largest in recent years. When you compare with late 90s and 2000s every other larger time gap "achieved" by LA, Ulrich and Pantani. There is no 5-min gap in post-LA era. Last year's ~3min (if I'm not mistaken) and this year's ~5min GC gap are all very suspicious if we are to talk about so-called clean era.

So what would you consider a non-suspicious time gap? Fewer than 3 minutes?

Why?? What is your methodology?

Let's have a look at some pre-EPO era time gaps...1984, over ten minutes. Is that suspicious? 1982 over six minutes...what does that mean? Suspicious or not???
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 21, 2013, 14:52
On the original point of Froome, I really dont know. And that not knowing is possibly the worst bit about the whole affair.

If there was any hard evidence that Froome was doping (Which as yet, despite rumours, speculation, interpretation of numbers there really isnt), it would be very easy to hate on the guy. By the same token, if there was hard evidence that Froome was 100% clean (Which again, there isnt, and its almost impossible to prove), it would be really easy to get behind the guy and fully support him.

Hell, just comparing this years tour with last, Froome v Wiggins, Froome was great to watch. He took the bull by the horns, he attacked rather than defending, he showed moments of incredible strength, but he also showed moments of weakness. He was in the end very entertaining to watch. Unfortunately that draws its own problems, Wiggins, Boring, Repetative, hence more likely to be clean that Froome, exciting, attacking, Froome is quickly compared to Armstrong, when he could as easily be compared to Nibali, Contador in his prime (no pun intended), or Purito.

And thats the problem we have right now. It would be so easy to utterly hate Froome if we knew for sure he was doping, just as it would be so easy to utterly love him if we knew he was clean. And the biggest frustration is none of us, regardless of what we may think, or assume, or speculate, or interpret, actually know. We just find ourselves in a void where we either do one or the other, and get slated by those who think the opposite way, or we sit in the middle and really struggle to get any enjoyment out of the race at all.

I wish they could prove Froome was clean, I would love to celebrate the attacking way in which he won the Tour, or if they could prove he was dirty, just to know for once and for all.

Instead, just sat here with questions.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 14:57
We might one day know if he was doping but we will never know if he was clean.

Never.

That doesn't just go or him, that goes for any rider. We will never know. That should have significant implications for how you choose to view this sport if you follow that point through to its logical conclusion.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: froome19 on July 21, 2013, 14:58
" most people agree" as an argument is nonesence. There is being polite and there is being ridiculous. There was no insult in my post no flaming or trolling. Nothing wrong with it. I don't see your problem.
I am addressing the general person who states that Sky is doping and in general they seem to agree that PED levels have gone. That just is the general consensus I have from reading various forums and on twitter.

Whilst I would agree with you if I was taking that idea from a poll which included David Cameron and the Pope as you rightly said then if the poll came out saying that PED levels had lessened it would be useless. But I was referring to those people who actually have an informed opinion and who posts on these types of forums. To me it seems like it is a widely held view that regardless of the percentage of people taking PEDs, the levels to which they are taking to has dropped as shown by times on climbs (of course Froome has started to reverse that this Tour.)

Ok, there are exceptions of people who don't agree with that statement and for them that wouldn't apply, but for everyone else it does.

Of course that is only my perception of the matter and others may have entirely different one, but to me it seems fairly accurate. People are welcome to differ in opinion though ;)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 15:06
Come on people now, smile on your brother everybody 'Get Together' try to love one another right now!

I will NOT join in a group orgy no matter HOW many times you ask, B-Bop!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 21, 2013, 15:16
In lots of ways, I just dont get the anger at Chris Froome.

So he is taking stuff he shouldnt, or at the very least on the leading edge.  Look over the history of the Tour ... look over the top 10 (well, 5 at least).  Do you see any saints there?     Maybe Quintana might get a pass as he is young (discussion for another thread) ... but the rest are all on the same path as Froome.

As far as his performance - whats not to like?  After the dour, defensive, boring Tours we have had recently ... we finally get a guy who WANTS to attack.  Who wants to ride to win the damn thing ... who takes it on and actually rides.

Whether or not he is a personal favorite, surely as fans of cycling we can appreciate his win?
Why would people be angry with Chris Froome? He is just a product of his environment. The problem with Chris Froome is not Chris Froome, it is Team Sky Procycling. Coming in cycling with a big mouth, with big bucks, with their 'holier than others' PR scheme. First British GT winner within five years, AND, clean of course. In a sport wich has been rifled with doping scandals for more than 20 years, uh, stop, since its excistence.

Chris Froome pays the prize for this PR scheme. Also muchos gracias to Dave Brailsford for this.

On the attacking part of your post. Well, I do remember a certain Miguel Indurain who attacked once every Tour, the first TT usually, and then sitted back with his big mountaingoat ass. This Tour was over at the first mountaintop finish at the Bonascre. What is the difference?  Yeah, there was Hautacam 1994, Ventoux 1994, La Plagne 1995, that stage with Bruyneel in 1995, but then Big Mig was a bit peeed of. Dont mess with Big Mig.

Riis in 1996, Sestriere, same thing, it is quite the luxury when you know your attack will stick. It is called uber dominance.

Froome has had a whole year dominance.

The question should be, do/should/would people believe Froome is the second coming of Eddy Merckx.

At first Freeman wasn’t convinced. “I was confused because Chris hadn’t performed with this consistency for the team and I wondered how he’d done it. Before I could be satisfied, I spent two weeks re-examining all of his blood samples from his two seasons in our team and looked at all the information in his biological passport.

What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he’d done previously to see if there were changes. There weren’t. His blood values remained the same and whatever the reasons for him riding consistently in that Vuelta, in my opinion it wasn’t down to him doing things he shouldn’t have done.” Freeman’s admission of initial concern was reassuring. His desire to investigate even more so.
That is interesting, you would think that the 'anti-epo what bilharzia resembles' should show up in his blood profile?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 15:16
" most people agree" as an argument is nonesence. There is being polite and there is being ridiculous. There was no insult in my post no flaming or trolling. Nothing wrong with it. I don't see your problem.

Come on, Hitch, I've nothing against you. Your posts can sting. And then it's hard not to retaliate.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 15:18
Quote
Chris Froome pays the prize for this PR scheme. Also muchos gracias to Dave Brailsford for this

Exactly.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 21, 2013, 15:23
Come on people now, smile on your brother everybody 'Get Together' try to love one another right now!
I can t believe this, big food fight without me???? I am fliped up :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 15:28
Froome may be at a different stage in his career but cycling is Post the Armstrong era and I think that makes all the difference when it comes to the levels of cynicism to be expected.
No, it's just after Armstrong, and you might expect more cynicism, but Froome hasn't even won his first MJ yet and if you look at eg the clinic, the levels of support are already like LA's a couple of years ago.. He doesn't have more fence sitters IMO.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 21, 2013, 15:33
Well when you spend most of your time making movies, you are going to miss other things! As a wise philosopher once said 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.'
Well you are right, this is last food fight thread here without me. I just dont care, I want to be involved :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 21, 2013, 15:40
That is interesting, you would think that the 'anti-epo what bilharzia resembles' should show up in his blood profile?
That confused me as well. Bilharzia was explained away as eating away at Froome's red blood cells but the biological passport is consistent over two years.

What data exactly is recorded in the biological passport?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 15:42
As I said, I agree with you. It all hangs on his team, if Porte goes it'll be a different outlook.
Yeah my point was like Wiggins' ambitions turned out to be BS, what Froome is saying now will be forgotten soon and they'll turn someone else into the world's best cyclist. It's not a matter of chancing upon extraordinary talent, it's like an undustrial process.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 21, 2013, 15:45
Edit:

Well my post ruffled someone's feathers.  So it's gone.

Happier?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 21, 2013, 15:53
I stopped at Axel Merckx' team being clean.

Ok, since I know Axel Merckx ...

The thought of that team being "clean" ...  Hahahahahahahahahahahaah

There, I got that out.  I feel better now.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 15:54
Yeah my point was like Wiggins' ambitions turned out to be BS, what Froome is saying now will be forgotten soon and they'll turn someone else into the world's best cyclist. It's not a matter of chancing upon extraordinary talent, it's like an undustrial process.

I don't see it like that at all. I see Wiggins as extraordinarily lucky last year, not an extraordinary talent. II never thought he would win another GT, I still don't. That has nothing to do with Sky, he's just not in the same league as Froome.

Froome will quite possibly win another, but I think he'll have a huge fight on his hands as everyone tries to up their game.  I think those in the top 6 this year will be after him. Contador not, I think he's finished.

If Wiggins had ridden this year, and not Froome, I don't think Sky would have won.

Just my opinion
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 17:21
That confused me as well. Bilharzia was explained away as eating away at Froome's red blood cells but the biological passport is consistent over two years.

What data exactly is recorded in the biological passport?

Yours not to reason why, 
yours just to believe in sky,
Close your eyes and swallow the lie,
Onto the champs, ride the 200
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 21, 2013, 18:40
Yours not to reason why,
yours just to believe in sky,
Close your eyes and swallow the lie,
Onto the champs, ride the 200

PMSL. Well that is an awesome comeback I gotta say. Clever too!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 21:10
I don't see it like that at all. I see Wiggins as extraordinarily lucky last year, not an extraordinary talent. II never thought he would win another GT, I still don't. That has nothing to do with Sky, he's just not in the same league as Froome.

Froome will quite possibly win another, but I think he'll have a huge fight on his hands as everyone tries to up their game.  I think those in the top 6 this year will be after him. Contador not, I think he's finished.

If Wiggins had ridden this year, and not Froome, I don't think Sky would have won.

Just my opinion
...and how do you suppose they'll do that?

If we were watching a genuine contest it would be reasonable to expect a rider as exceptional as Froome to dominate for a considerable time, albeit with some challengers. However for him it has been easy come, and I think it'll be easy go as well, as the next super soldier gets lined up.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 21, 2013, 23:20
That confused me as well. Bilharzia was explained away as eating away at Froome's red blood cells but the biological passport is consistent over two years.

What data exactly is recorded in the biological passport?

This is definitely strange. Schistosomiasis (bilharzia) is supposed to reduce hemoglobin, which is one of the parameters measured in the passport. If there was no difference in Froome's values pre- and post- 2011, then there is a real problem explaining his big jump in performance.

Many people seem to think the main rap against Froome is that his performance matches or nearly matches only what known dopers have done. Actually, that is the lesser of two issues. The larger issue is that his performance now is far better than it was before 2011. The one possible non-doping explanation for that would be his disease, which would be expected to reduce hemoglobin, hence V02 max and power. But if his blood values didn't change during this period, then that explanation is out.

The difference in performance is so stark that his power values pre-2011 must be quite different from those beginning with the 2011 Vuelta. Unfortunately, Sky has not yet to my knowledge released these values to anyone. If they do, and the values are indeed a lot lower, how are they going to explain them if his blood values are the same? OTOH, if the values are not a lot lower, how are they going to explain the big change in performance?

An additional problem is that since the power values that have been released show a consistent level since 2011, he can't have endured a large drop in hemoglobin levels during this period. Yet he claims that the first treatment for the disease, in Dec. 2010, did not eradicate it completely, and I believe he has referred to at least three subsequent treatments. Beyond the fact that the disease is almost always supposed to be curable with a single treatment, if in his case it weren't, one should have seen fluctuations in power levels.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 21, 2013, 23:22
On the original point of Froome, I really dont know. And that not knowing is possibly the worst bit about the whole affair.

If there was any hard evidence that Froome was doping (Which as yet, despite rumours, speculation, interpretation of numbers there really isnt), it would be very easy to hate on the guy. By the same token, if there was hard evidence that Froome was 100% clean (Which again, there isnt, and its almost impossible to prove), it would be really easy to get behind the guy and fully support him.

Hell, just comparing this years tour with last, Froome v Wiggins, Froome was great to watch. He took the bull by the horns, he attacked rather than defending, he showed moments of incredible strength, but he also showed moments of weakness. He was in the end very entertaining to watch. Unfortunately that draws its own problems, Wiggins, Boring, Repetative, hence more likely to be clean that Froome, exciting, attacking, Froome is quickly compared to Armstrong, when he could as easily be compared to Nibali, Contador in his prime (no pun intended), or Purito.

And thats the problem we have right now. It would be so easy to utterly hate Froome if we knew for sure he was doping, just as it would be so easy to utterly love him if we knew he was clean. And the biggest frustration is none of us, regardless of what we may think, or assume, or speculate, or interpret, actually know. We just find ourselves in a void where we either do one or the other, and get slated by those who think the opposite way, or we sit in the middle and really struggle to get any enjoyment out of the race at all.

I wish they could prove Froome was clean, I would love to celebrate the attacking way in which he won the Tour, or if they could prove he was dirty, just to know for once and for all.

Instead, just sat here with questions.

They cant because he isn't.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 21, 2013, 23:24
They cant because he isn't.

And hence the problem, we dont actually know that for sure. We dont know either way, those that think he is clean dont know, those that think he is doping dont know.

We can certainly guess at which is the most likely based on history. But none of us know. And therein lies the problem with trying to love this sport.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 23:26
This is definitely strange. Schistosomiasis (bilharzia) is supposed to reduce hemoglobin, which is one of the parameters measured in the passport. If there was no difference in Froome's values pre- and post- 2011, then there is a real problem explaining his big jump in performance.

Many people seem to think the main rap against Froome is that his performance matches or nearly matches only what known dopers have done. Actually, that is the lesser of two issues. The larger issue is that his performance now is far better than it was before 2011. The one possible non-doping explanation for that would be his disease, which would be expected to reduce hemoglobin, hence V02 max and power. But if his blood values didn't change during this period, then that explanation is out.

The difference in performance is so stark that his power values pre-2011 must be quite different from those beginning with the 2011 Vuelta. Unfortunately, Sky has not yet to my knowledge released these values to anyone. If they do, and the values are indeed a lot lower, how are they going to explain them if his blood values are the same? OTOH, if the values are not a lot lower, how are they going to explain the big change in performance?

Well he did have to cope with a mum dying of cancer in 2010, when he was only 25.

Having faced similar, I can understand why he might not have been very motivated at that point in his life.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 21, 2013, 23:32
And hence the problem, we dont actually know that for sure. We dont know either way, those that think he is clean dont know, those that think he is doping dont know.

We can certainly guess at which is the most likely based on history. But none of us know. And therein lies the problem with trying to love this sport.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 21, 2013, 23:34
Well he did have to cope with a mum dying of cancer in 2010, when he was only 25.

Having faced similar, I can understand why he might not have been very motivated at that point in his life.

I'm having trouble believing you're serious. It isn't just 2010, it's all previous years. There was nothing in his performances until the 2011 Vuelta that gave any indication that he would be a legitimate GT rider, let alone a dominant one. Unless his mother was in the process of dying during the entirety of Froome's professional career up to 2010, and Froome lacked motivation the whole time, this is a non-explanation. And if she was, I imagine Froome himself might have mentioned it, given how and he and Sky have scrambled to come up with explanations for his sudden rise to the top.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 21, 2013, 23:35
Sorry, but the "ah but we can't know" position is a bit legalistic and unsatisfactory. Considering that we know what it's taken to win the thing for the last 20 years pretty much,  and the fact that we're seeing so many of the same faces on bikes and in cars as in dirty years, it isn't appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. Without even considering Froome individually, as the champion of the sport as it is currently it's improbable that he's clean. What would it take to prove he's clean? Evidence of change in cycling in general, transparency from the team, probably a non-fairytale career trajectory.

The top of cycling not believeable until further notice.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 21, 2013, 23:35
Sorry Dim , have had 'bible' salesmen like Brailsford selling his version of 'clean living' before, i didn't buy it then and i aint buying it now.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 21, 2013, 23:46
I'm having trouble believing you're serious. It isn't just 2010, it's all previous years. There was nothing in his performances until the 2011 Vuelta that gave any indication that he would be a legitimate GT rider, let alone a dominant one. Unless his mother was in the process of dying during the entirety of Froome's professional career up to 2010, and Froome lacked motivation the whole time, this is a non-explanation. And if she was, I imagine Froome himself might have mentioned it, given how and he and Sky have scrambled to come up with explanations for his sudden rise to the top.

The 'entirety of Froome's career' up until his mothers death was effectively 2 years. Don't know how long his mother took to die.

As for Froome mentioning it, I can't believe you said that. I'm pretty sure Froome's world doesn't revolve around placating internet-based cynics, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't invoke his dead mother to do it.



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 21, 2013, 23:48
Yet he claims that the first treatment for the disease, in Dec. 2010, did not eradicate it completely, and I believe he has referred to at least three subsequent treatments. Beyond the fact that the disease is almost always supposed to be curable with a single treatment, if in his case it weren't, one should have seen fluctuations in power levels.

The first lady said in this thread last year that he had one in March 2012, 2 before that. Froome admited to having 1 earlier this year. So yep 4. + hes having one "immediately after the Tour".
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 22, 2013, 00:12
About 160 years ago, Theodor Bilharz discovered the cause of a disease that manifested as chronic bloody urine, and thus gave that disease his name.
Although the term bilharzia is still used, today the disease is known as schistosomiasis in medical circles, and the tiny worms that cause it are Schistosoma spp., S. haematobium, S. mansoni; with S. japonicum being the most common.

According to a July 16 Velo News article by Andrew Hood, Tour de France yellow jersey leader, Chris Froome (Team Sky) says he’s “… been struggling with bilharzia over the past several seasons.”
Unfortunately, anyone hoping to learn anything about schistosomiasis from that article will come away considerably misinformed.

Bilharzia – The Parasite
The schistosomes are flukes that live in the blood. Male and female worms are typically found in pairs living in the small blood vessels around the bladder or intestine, depending on the species. Mature females deposit eggs in those vessels – eggs which may be swept away by the bloodstream, or may be lodged in blood vessel walls and eventually break through into surrounding tissue. Gradually they make their way through to the bladder lumen where urine collects, or the intestinal lumen, and are thence passed to the outside world with the urine or feces.
A pair of schistosomes magnified many times. The male wraps himself around the long thin female, seen lying diagonally at upper left. Image from Otis Historical Archives of “National Museum of Health & Medicine," CC BY 2.0.
This is a pair of schistosomes magnified many times. The male wraps himself around the long thin female, seen lying diagonally at upper left. Image from Otis Historical Archives of “National Museum of Health & Medicine,” CC BY 2.0.
The eggs do not hatch inside the human body and give rise to more parasites: they need fresh water and a snail host in order to develop. If they find their way into fresh water, the eggs hatch, releasing a microscopic swimming stage of the parasite, which will invade a snail if it finds the right species. Inside the snail, the parasites multiply, eventually releasing many swimming parasites that are now infective to humans.
This is the stage at which Chris Froome would have stepped into the water. He would not have seen the parasites, for they are far too small, but they are attracted to human skin and burrow through it quickly, entering the bloodstream and traveling to the liver. There, they mature for a time before migrating to the blood vessels where they will spend the rest of their lives producing eggs.

Where Did Chris Froome Get Schistosomiasis?
more http://www.decodedscience.com/chris-froomes-parasite-what-is-bilharzia-anyway/33544 (http://www.decodedscience.com/chris-froomes-parasite-what-is-bilharzia-anyway/33544)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 22, 2013, 00:37
The 'entirety of Froome's career' up until his mothers death was effectively 2 years. Don't know how long his mother took to die.

As for Froome mentioning it, I can't believe you said that. I'm pretty sure Froome's world doesn't revolve around placating internet-based cynics, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't invoke his dead mother to do it.


Oh, come on. He turned pro in 2007, which means he raced for four seasons prior to 2011, not even counting his amateur years, which are hardly irrelevant in evaluating his potential. He rode the TDF for the first time in 2008, at age 23, and finished 82 places behind what the 23 year old Nairo Quintana accomplished this year.

If you think only a handful of internet cynics are asking about Froome, you might want to ask yourself why Sky went to the trouble of giving Grappe the power data they did. And if they would constantly emphasize his disease, to the point of putting out blatantly false information (e.g., the flatworm eggs cannot hatch and develop in the human body), why wouldn't they also use his mother's death for the same purpose?

By the way, the motivation of other riders did not seem to be hampered by the death of their mother from cancer. See Ivan Basso. What I really object to, though, is that you would use that issue as a possible explanation for Froome's sudden ascendance--and then when I actually follow through on that, consider the implications, you try to dodge it by arguing that Froome would never bother to use that excuse. If he wouldn't, why should you? Why should you even think it is an excuse, given that Froome has never used it?

We appear to have a very serious discrepancy in performance/power pre- vs. post-2011. And you are seriously going to argue that his mother's death is part of the explanation? When Froome himself has never mentioned that?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 00:54

Oh, come on. He turned pro in 2007, which means he raced for four seasons prior to 2011, not even counting his amateur years, which are hardly irrelevant in evaluating his potential. He rode the TDF for the first time in 2008, at age 23, and finished 82 places behind what the 23 year old Nairo Quintana accomplished this year.

If you think only a handful of internet cynics are asking about Froome, you might want to ask yourself why Sky went to the trouble of giving Grappe the power data they did. And if they would constantly emphasize his disease, to the point of putting out blatantly false information (e.g., the flatworm eggs cannot hatch and develop in the human body), why wouldn't they also use his mother's death for the same purpose?

By the way, the motivation of other riders did not seem to be hampered by the death of their mother from cancer. See Ivan Basso. What I really object to, though, is that you would use that issue as a possible explanation for Froome's sudden ascendance--and then when I actually follow through on that, consider the implications, you try to dodge it by arguing that Froome would never bother to use that excuse. If he wouldn't, why should you? Why should you even think it is an excuse, given that Froome has never used it?

MI, good to see you online cos im dying for your take on that article. In 1 way it seems to vindicate Froome's story as it explains why he would still be infected by Bilharzia, as she says his Bilharzia is much less unlikely than has been claimed. Or is she just saying Bilharzia is more common than Hood says.

But from what i understand is that if Froome still sufferes from Bilharzia it is the eggs, but that praziquantel cant kill eggs. On the other side one of the people said Biltricide or whatever Froome takes is another form of praziquantel made by a different company. So is there a contradiction there?

The article is very short though and doesn't adress Froome, just Hood's stupidity.  Under treatment she doesn't say what can remove eggs just what can remove the worms so we aren't really getting all the info.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 22, 2013, 01:17
We dont know either way, those that think he is clean dont know, those that think he is doping dont know.

The annoying thing is that certain people on internet forums *do* know. They point to performance, like performance can't improve over a few years. They point to doping doctors, even through they're employed part time, and now no longer employed. They say many people on internet forums know he's doping, but then question people on internet forums who believe he isn't. They say it's a conspiracy, and that Sky are given a free ride, despite the president of the UCI being challenged by a huge figure in British Cycling.

Let's face it, every single utterance, every single word published, every single aspect of his life is pored over by the sceptics, and any slight hesitation, every cough after a tough mountain stage, every performance is analysed, scrutinised, and spreadsheet-ised in order to show that it's not normal, it's all lies.

Let's face it, we don't know. I prefer to think he's clean, and don't like to be assumed of jingoism because of it. Others think he's dirty. You won't convince me, and I won't convince you. I'm done with this discussion, until you come up with some evidence, rather than half-baked assumptions and rhetoric-laden angry posts.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 22, 2013, 01:35
MI, good to see you online cos im dying for your take on that article. In 1 way it seems to vindicate Froome's story as it explains why he would still be infected by Bilharzia, as she says his Bilharzia is much less unlikely than has been claimed. Or is she just saying Bilharzia is more common than Hood says.

But from what i understand is that if Froome still sufferes from Bilharzia it is the eggs, but that praziquantel cant kill eggs. On the other side one of the people said Biltricide or whatever Froome takes is another form of praziquantel made by a different company. So is there a contradiction there?

The article is very short though and doesn't adress Froome, just Hood's stupidity.  Under treatment she doesn't say what can remove eggs just what can remove the worms so we aren't really getting all the info.

Edit: she also says this

The thing is, if you just spend some time reading websites yourself on the diagnosis and treatment - it does not come across a particularly difficult condition to treat, or to diagnose.  There are very few references to it being a "chronic" issue.

There seem to be many people trotting out convenient explanations of what the condition is and what it does.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 22, 2013, 01:42
I will put my hands up and say I dont know nearly as much about Bilharzia as I would like to. So many conflicting stories, some say its cured with one dose and never comes back, others say it can take multiple treatments..

Would be helpful to find an African doctor who actually knows something about it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 01:53
I will put my hands up and say I dont know nearly as much about Bilharzia as I would like to. So many conflicting stories, some say its cured with one dose and never comes back, others say it can take multiple treatments..

Would be helpful to find an African doctor who actually knows something about it.

Doctors don't need to be African, the top tropical disease researchers can also be found in Lshtm for example and in Australia, US etc.

Anyway from what ive read the stories aren't conflicting in the slightest. All stories say that Bilharzia is cured with 1 treatment (though can be multiple doses over a few days) in the majority of cases but it can take multiple treatments in some rare cases (1 place said it was 90% 10%)

Ive read that the 10% or so where further treatment is needed is when there are a larger number of worms in the system and therefore a few might survive the first Prazanquitel treatment. But in those cases the disease should also be more severe.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 02:19
As i have mentioned separately the only thing i know is that indicators of the disease can remain in the body for a long time after you have had the disease. So you take the cure, it kills the worms but your body can continue to pass worms and can continue not have antibodies after that. This means you do not really have the disease but makes it hard to confirm this.

I have seen some stuff where they said this makes it hard to judge the effectiveness of medication in clinical trials as it is difficult to judge rates of reinfection as those that are cured still show indicators. in some trials they try to estimate from the level of eggs being passed and also by measuring as an average across communities rather than individuals

it is a hard disease to measure and to run clinic trials on and general treatments tend to be given out depending on what percentage of a community is showing signs of the disease rather than purely looking at individual cases

so having said that unless he had returned to Africa, from what i understand which is limited, any repeat medication would be purely for safety, as he could still show he had the disease so to make sure they treat again.

I do not understand why he would lie about still having it in 2012 as what does he gain from that, if anything makes him look worse as implying he was fine when still having the disease when he provides it as an excuse before.

People examining what he has said in an interview is a little off as well. Like everyone has ever understood in complete detail what the doctor has said about a disease. He heard that he still had indicators and that he maybe had to take something. maybe he did not get everything exactly right. i guess someone could ask his doctor but again i wonder why he would have made this up unless implication is the whole thing is made up.

Honestly this bilharzia thing is just a perfect example of what i hate about the current atmosphere in cycling

people honestly believe that Sky and Froome have got together and made up a disease he had to cover for the fact that he is on some new sort of doping and they wanted to cover for the improvements they knew that would come from that doping?

what did Sky have to gain. they had Wiggins and where happy to dump Froome till the vuelta. why would they have made up this story in advance to cover for an improvement when they were happy to let him go. and Froome did not do it on his own as it was the team that found the blood results

it is a common disease in Africa, i think one of the most prevalent after malaria. it is treatable but lots of people die from it every year because of issues with detecting it and lack of access to quick treatment. it fact it would be great if now every one has heard of Bilharzia they could donate money to getting rid of it instead of arguing about whether some guy had it 2 or 3 years ago.

pretty sure even the evil Lance at his peak could not have come up with such an elaborate plan as people are seeing here.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 22, 2013, 02:50
See the Bilharzia (sp???) is the thing I find least suspect.   People get illness's.  I dont immediately suspect a massive conspiracy ... I find it fairly plausible. 

The things I see as suspicious about Froome are essentially

1 - career progression.   The fact that he did not have a top 10 finish in a professional race in 3 and a half years as a pro ... and then suddenly he breaks through and becomes Mr Consistant.  2nd 2011 Vuelta, 2012 - 4th Dauphine, 2nd Tdf, 4th Vuelta,  2013 -1st Oman, 1st Crit Int, 1st Romandie, 1st Dauphine, 1st TdF.     The dual explanations that he was sick for a part of 2010/2011 ... and didnt know how to ride in the peloton is just not cutting it for me.   If he was sick for 2010/2011 ... ok I understand the lack of results for that period, but that does not explain earlier.  If no results is because he didnt know how to ride in the peloton, how did he suddenly acquire those skills enough to consistently over 3 weeks put it together.

2 - recovery.    He said he took the treatment in March 2012.  He said he had a week off the bike because the treatment makes him so sick.  A week off - from an already substantially reduced preseason due to this illness (he didnt do Paris Nice or any other early season race) ... he was absolutely sh*t at Romandie in April ... but by June at the Dauphine he is not just better, but in tip top form leading Wiggins up the mountains.  By the Tour he is in better shape than Wiggins who has spent the best part of 8 months building up.   Form -that kind of form - doesnt happen in 2 months after a crap pre-season and interrupted training.   And if it does, its due to INCREDIBLE immense talent that should have shown itself early in his career

3 - Mastering everything.  We have never had a clean cyclist in the history of our sport (that I can think of anyway) that has been able to be the absolute top of all areas.  That can TT with the world champ and can ride up mountains with the climbers, and can stay together on the flats.   Every one has strengths and weaknesses.... Wiggins was fantastic at TT, and challenged the WC ... but on the mountains he was just hanging on.  He used his team - and needed them - to make sure that he didnt lose time.   Evans the same - great at TT, limited losses in the mountains.   Schleck - great at mountains, tries to limit losses in TT.      We are essentially expected to believe that Chris Froome is physiologically the most talented rider we have seen in a VERY long time - but if he really is that talented ... why did it take him 4 years as a pro to win a professional race?   And if he had that amount of natural talent ... why was his team going to dump him?

Given the history of our sport ... given that every other rider with that amount of talent has in the end been shown to have been doping ... given that he is dominating guys that we know are doping .... I just dont have the faith that Froome is not.    :(
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 22, 2013, 03:41
MI, good to see you online cos im dying for your take on that article. In 1 way it seems to vindicate Froome's story as it explains why he would still be infected by Bilharzia, as she says his Bilharzia is much less unlikely than has been claimed. Or is she just saying Bilharzia is more common than Hood says.

But from what i understand is that if Froome still sufferes from Bilharzia it is the eggs, but that praziquantel cant kill eggs. On the other side one of the people said Biltricide or whatever Froome takes is another form of praziquantel made by a different company. So is there a contradiction there?

The article is very short though and doesn't adress Froome, just Hood's stupidity.  Under treatment she doesn't say what can remove eggs just what can remove the worms so we aren't really getting all the info.


It's quite possible Froome still is infected by eggs, and the eggs are what cause the symptoms, at least, they contain the antigens that destroy hemoglobin. But as you note, praziquantel targets not the eggs, but the worms, so I don't see what the point would be in having further treatments with that drug. The eggs should eventually all be passed from his body, though, or destroyed by his immune system.

He might be arguing that he has a low-grade persistent infection with the eggs that no treatment has been able to cure. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the disease to know if that's possible. But if that's the case, why have his power levels been so consistent since 2011? And why, according to a post earlier in this thread, have his passport values been consistent beginning even before this time?

Regardless of the status of his disease, there is almost certainly a discrepancy between pre-2011 and post-2011 power values, though Sky, despite all Brailsford's claims of wanting to do whatever it takes, apparently won't release the pre-2011 values. But there apparently is no discrepancy between passport values during this period. That is inconsistent with the large increase in performance and presumably power, and is also inconsistent with any claims Froome has made that the disease adversely affected his blood.

If Froome has had the same general passport baseline from before 2011, he can't argue that his performance in that earlier period was hurt by the disease, unless he wants to argue it was through some effect on something other than blood. But in fact all the statements on that I've seen have claimed or implied it was from effects on his blood. However, the statement that his passport was stable throughout that period is inconsistent with his claims that the disease was detected through blood work. What alteration in the blood would have allowed detection of the disease if his passport, which prominently includes hemoglobin concentration, was normal?

So to summarize, here are some questions raised by the statements put out on Froome's condition:

1) says his initial treatment with praziquantel did not cure the disease, when in most cases it does; it surely should have been cured in less than three years
2) maybe all the eggs have not been eradicated, but what treatment is there for that? and if eggs are still present, why has his performance been so consistent since 2011?
3) if he had the disease untreated up to Dec. 2010, why did his passport not exhibit lowered hemoglobin relative to after treatment?
4) if his passport was basically unchanged from before 2011 to after 2011, the effect of the disease on hemoglobin can't be used as an explanation for the sudden increase in performance beginning in 2011. So what is the explanation? Also, if the passport was unchanged, how was the disease detected? What was the indicator of disease in the blood that would not have been detected in the passport?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 03:53
Its very unfair to say people are claiming Froome made Bilharzia up and then punch holes in that storyline. That is not what was argued.

. In fact to the contrary what speculation there was was not based on Froome making up the disease but on Froome having it and questions surrounding how this affects anti dopings approach towards him.

Its also unfair to assume these theories are being championed by clinic amateurs out  to get Froome.

The main observations came from  2 people who claimed to have significant background specifically in treating Bilharzia, one who claimed to have suffered from it and gave details of his own treatment, one who said he treated it while working for a charity in South Africa  and one who said his wife was a university researcher on tropical diseases, as well as MI who as i understand works in a different scientific field giving his own observations.


What they said was not that Froome made Bilharzia up but that his stories contradicted with what they know on the disease.

And Sky and Froome have done themselves no favours by mixing up their own stories on Froome's Bilharzia. Jullich and Froome give different dates and accounts of Froome's diagnosis and treatment. You can say one of them got their facts and memories mixed up (which one? Froome should know better since its his body but Jullich is the one who goes into far more detail) but since that is the case you cannot blame the fans for asking questions when Sky are totally at fault there. They claim to be the most detail driven organization with Bailsford painted as this ultimate workacholic who turns every stone 10 times more than anyone else yet they had 2 contradictory stories out there and never even stepped forward to say 1 was a mistake .

That's sky's fault. Bilharzia isn't some superficial side issue that doesn't mean anything. Its the central reason given for why Froome was no good before the 2011 Vuelta. And its a disease that has implications on the biopasport. Sky and Froome choose to reveal the story to the public, mess up totally what they say and don't bother correcting it. Tough titties. Not the fans fault for asking.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 03:57
4. is an interesting point. guess they only check certain factors. I think it was dedicated by a set of blood tests done when he joined sky, not sure if those were general tests or tests specifically targeting why he was struggling.

My understanding was the lasting effects of the disease are usually from the damage to internal organs. i want to say liver but may be Kidneys can never remember which way round it is.

given he is winning tour am pretty sure he does not have lasting liver damage so my only guess is either they gave him extra treatment to be sure there was no repeat infection. but seems overkill. would like to hear from his doctor (which i am sure we never will) just cause i am interested now and would like to understand it but again cannot see any advantage in him saying he still had treatment this year unless implication is the whole thing is made up.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 04:00
Its very unfair to say people are claiming Froome made Bilharzia up and then punch holes in that storyline. That is not what was argued.

. In fact to the contrary what speculation there was was not based on Froome making up the disease but on Froome having it and questions surrounding how this affects anti dopings approach towards him.

Its also unfair to assume these theories are being championed by clinic amateurs out  to get Froome.

The main observations came from  2 people who claimed to have significant background specifically in treating Bilharzia, one who claimed to have suffered from it and gave details of his own treatment, one who said he treated it while working for a charity in South Africa  and one who said his wife was a university researcher on tropical diseases, as well as MI who as i understand works in a different scientific field giving his own observations.


What they said was not that Froome made Bilharzia up but that his stories contradicted with what they know on the disease.

And Sky and Froome have done themselves no favours by mixing up their own stories on Froome's Bilharzia. Jullich and Froome give different dates and accounts of Froome's diagnosis and treatment. You can say one of them got their facts and memories mixed up (which one? Froome should know better since its his body but Jullich is the one who goes into far more detail) but since that is the case you cannot blame the fans for asking questions when Sky are totally at fault there. They claim to be the most detail driven organization with Bailsford painted as this ultimate workacholic who turns every stone 10 times more than anyone else yet they had 2 contradictory stories out there and never even stepped forward to say 1 was a mistake .

That's sky's fault. Bilharzia isn't some superficial side issue that doesn't mean anything. Its the central reason given for why Froome was no good before the 2011 Vuelta. And its a disease that has implications on the biopasport. Sky and Froome choose to reveal the story to the public, mess up totally what they say and don't bother correcting it. Tough titties. Not the fans fault for asking.

Rubbish. that is exactly what people are saying.

What else are they implying by saying that they are making mistakes and being inconsistent. the only reason for people to say that is they are implying they made the whole thing up and it is therefore a conspiracy to cover doping.

otherwise why on earth would it matter if they got a date wrong or if the treatment he said he had does not agree with what someone else said.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 04:38
Rubbish. that is exactly what people are saying.

What else are they implying by saying that they are making mistakes and being inconsistent. the only reason for people to say that is they are implying they made the whole thing up and it is therefore a conspiracy to cover doping.

otherwise why on earth would it matter if they got a date wrong or if the treatment he said he had does not agree with what someone else said.

Your asking too many questions of the people who point out Sky's mistakes.

The people you should be directing your ire at are sky and froome. They fliped it up. Not the fans. The fans are allowed to ask questions. Sky claim to have "reinvented cycling" (not my words) with their attention to detail and science, yet they can't even get their story straight over their new Bernard Hinault and Froome has no idea about the disease that is inside his body.

Especially when this is the guy who has experienced the most miraculous transformation in the history of sport. And the reason given is Bilharzia. Not everyone will swallow that whole and they have a right to ask questions. They see this Bilharzia story being given post dated to explain froomes rise (only after he has achieved it) and then they see totally different versions of what even happened.

their fault. A tropical diseases expert  from Australia chances upon an article in which Froome explains what Bilharzia is and points out that the guy has it all messed up. What is he implying, i dont know, doesn't he have a right to make those observatons?

If you are so confident that there is nothing to hide then who you really really should be hating on right now is not the doctor for making those observations but  Sky for flipping it up so bad. 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: l29205 on July 22, 2013, 05:41
They Published his power numbers, nothing seemed to out of line.  Nothing that would point to his old parasitic infection.  Nothing out of line.  IMO.  He was weak at times and strong most just like most tour winners.  Clean at this time I am giving him a pass. For now  :rolleye  However, after all of these years no one gets a pass without questions.. :(
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 06:16
I have not said anything about the doctor. What i am hating on is the crowd of people taking what that doctor said and acting like it is some smoking gun to a conspiracy that frankly sounds completely farcical to me.

So they had this story prepared ahead of the vuelta on the expectation he was strong enough there (even while people made it clear sky wanted to drop him then.) it was being talked about already then. In fact you can see him talk about illness before the race and as far back as July. he only starts to discuss what he actually had at the vuelta.

You say sky messed it up but again you are basing that on one interview with one guy where the dates are not the same as those reported in every other article / interview / blog written by Froome. From my understanding it was diagnosed in 2010 and he was treated and then following issues early 2011 where he struggled with consistency, they tested him again and found he still had it and was treated again. The drug used to treat is effective 90% of the time. that means 1 in 10 people it does not work on. given current expected infection rates that means there would be 50 million people in the world that have take biltricide and it would not work for them. Most guides to the disease suggest follow ups at 6 and 12 months afterwards. Why would they do this it was guaranteed to have been cured.

in less than an hour of reading on the web i can find articles about how the disease is treated, how people who have been infected are often retreated a year later to ensure the disease has been eradicated even though they have moved from a state of general malaise and illness to normal health.

and 'Especially when this is the guy who has experienced the most miraculous transformation in the history of sport.' is your opinion which has been debated over and over again by many people in many different places and yet you still state it as fact.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 07:03
Quote
Unless his mother was in the process of dying during the entirety of Froome's professional career up to 2010, and Froome lacked motivation the whole time, this is a non-explanation. And if she was, I imagine Froome himself might have mentioned it, given how and he and Sky have scrambled to come up with explanations for his

WOW!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 22, 2013, 07:11
Quite.

I haven't bothered to reply to that. Nor will I.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 07:16
And if they would constantly emphasize his disease, to the point of putting out blatantly false information (e.g. the flatworm eggs cannot hatch and develop in the human body), why wouldn't they also use his mother's death for the same purpose?

By the way, the motivation of other riders did not seem to be hampered by the death of their mother from cancer. See Ivan Basso. What I really object to, though, is that you would use that issue as a possible explanation for Froome's sudden ascendance--and then when I actually follow through on that, consider the implications, you try to dodge it by arguing that Froome would never bother to use that excuse. If he wouldn't, why should you? Why should you even think it is an excuse, given that Froome has never used it?

We appear to have a very serious discrepancy in performance/power pre- vs. post-2011. And you are seriously going to argue that his mother's death is part of the explanation? When Froome himself has never mentioned that?

WOW!

Joachim was just stating a fact and a little opinion about cancer. What happens? You guys bring your rocket launchers! All this sneery talk about cancer - AGAIN you guys bring that ugly vicious tone to this thread! The problem is not you following up on what Joachim
said, it's how you say it.

Fine, guys, keep it coming, why should you be the only angry mob on here???

And as for the Bhilarzia - here's a little factoid for you - as a child growing up my dad used to give my bro and I hectic speeches about NOT stepping in stagnant pools of water because of how dangerous it is - one day he caught my bro and I doing just that when we went fishing with him - we were dragged home, he fliped us up right nice with his belt, and then we were not allowed to go fishing with him for months after as punishment.

And *GO*
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 07:25
Its very unfair to say people are claiming Froome made Bilharzia up and then punch holes in that storyline. That is not what was argued.

Its also unfair to assume these theories are being championed by clinic amateurs out  to get Froome.

The main observations came from  2 people who claimed to have significant background specifically in treating Bilharzia, one who claimed to have suffered from it and gave details of his own treatment, one who said he treated it while working for a charity in South Africa  and one who said his wife was a university researcher on tropical diseases, as well as MI who as i understand works in a different scientific field giving his own observations.


What they said was not that Froome made Bilharzia up but that his stories contradicted with what they know on the disease.

And Sky and Froome have done themselves no favours by mixing up their own stories on Froome's Bilharzia. Jullich and Froome give different dates and accounts of Froome's diagnosis and treatment. You can say one of them got their facts and memories mixed up (which one? Froome should know better since its his body but Jullich is the one who goes into far more detail) but since that is the case you cannot blame the fans for asking questions when Sky are totally at fault there. They claim to be the most detail driven organization with Bailsford painted as this ultimate workacholic who turns every stone 10 times more than anyone else yet they had 2 contradictory stories out there and never even stepped forward to say 1 was a mistake .

That's sky's fault. Bilharzia isn't some superficial side issue that doesn't mean anything. Its the central reason given for why Froome was no good before the 2011 Vuelta. And its a disease that has implications on the biopasport. Sky and Froome choose to reveal the story to the public, mess up totally what they say and don't bother correcting it. Tough titties. Not the fans fault for asking.

WOW! Hitch, sorry, no offence but a lecture on 'unfair' responses from you?

Also please stop referring to
Quote
the fans
when speaking for yourself.

Asking questions is not the issue, tone is.

*Sets recording on repeat*
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 07:30
Dim, DinZ, Doolols, BYOP - nice posts, I couldn't agree more :karen
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 07:35
Your asking too many questions of the people who point out Sky's mistakes.

WOW!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 22, 2013, 07:42
WOW!

What a mess this thread has become.

PS I don't see the problem with Hitch and MI's posts
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 08:10
WOW!

What a mess this thread has become.

PS I don't see the problem with Hitch and MI's posts

Florry, I agree.


Ok, different strokes, I guess. I don't like the tone, because I think that if the rest of us posted like that there would be bickering and fighting like this every day on the forum. To me it seems like bringing a gun to a knife fight. I guess time will have to tell on this one.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 22, 2013, 08:14
I don't think the thread is a mess, there are interesting points being brought up - problem is just that everyone is talking against a wall
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 08:39
"@Babe__Ruth: Professional sports corporations are machines of mass social molding and manipulation"
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 22, 2013, 09:50
Now here's a conspiracy theory - this thread has got very animated, some might say verging on the nasty and personal, around the same time as The Clinic (and the rest of the CN forums) goes offline.

I guess some people need to find a place to vent.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 22, 2013, 09:53
The 'entirety of Froome's career' up until his mothers death was effectively 2 years. Don't know how long his mother took to die.

As for Froome mentioning it, I can't believe you said that. I'm pretty sure Froome's world doesn't revolve around placating internet-based cynics, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't invoke his dead mother to do it.
Oh the screaming irony. After bringing up Froome's mother's death completely unprompted as an explanation for a performance jump, blushing at the distasteful idea of doing exactly that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 22, 2013, 09:56
Now here's a conspiracy theory - this thread has got very animated, some might say verging on the nasty and personal, around the same time as The Clinic (and the rest of the CN forums) goes offline.

I guess some people need to find a place to vent.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 22, 2013, 09:58
ok guys ... lets ALL take a chill pill here.

Yes I agree - bringing up and discussing the passing of Chris Froome's mother in such a manner is callous and disrespectful.   So lets please leave that and move on.

We can have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks and insults.  I dont want to start moderating the discussion and deleting posts ... but I will if you guys cannot tone it down.

Its up to you ...
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 22, 2013, 10:08
Now here's a conspiracy theory - this thread has got very animated, some might say verging on the nasty and personal, around the same time as The Clinic (and the rest of the CN forums) goes offline.

I guess some people need to find a place to vent.
No conspiracy - I for one am here because the clinic is down. I fail to see how this thread has got nasty though, there's just too much O/T discussion of other people's posting styles IMO.

The conspiracy theory would be the one linking CNs technical issues with negative pr generated by sections of the forum during the TdF.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 22, 2013, 10:17
No conspiracy - I for one am here because the clinic is down. I fail to see how this thread has got nasty though, there's just too much O/T discussion of other people's posting styles IMO.

The conspiracy theory would be the one linking CNs technical issues with negative pr generated by sections of the forum during the TdF.

And you are most welcome here, any time.   Everyone is    :)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 22, 2013, 10:20
Guys

1st I had just posted but removed my posts as it said the same as AG.

Here is the deal you all know it.

1. Keep this on topic

2. Discuss the topic not the poster , that includes what you think people tone is.

3. We as a staff would rather not moderate, but soon if people posting style does not change we will have to do more and more. We have done some soft moderation already which we hate doing

4. All other forums have nothing to do with velorooms, information from other forums 're the topic if they add to the discussions are welcome , nothing more or less.

5. Report posts if you believe they cross the line, but nothing more making comments 're people tone etc do not keep this topic on track.

6 use the ignore button if you can not agree with a poster and you will cross any lines of what is allowed on velorooms.

7. There has been some really good posts on topic over night let's keep it on topic
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 22, 2013, 10:32
They Published his power numbers, nothing seemed to out of line.  Nothing that would point to his old parasitic infection.  Nothing out of line.  IMO.  He was weak at times and strong most just like most tour winners.  Clean at this time I am giving him a pass. For now  :rolleye  However, after all of these years no one gets a pass without questions.. :(

To get his back on track then - Does Sky being willing to submit some of Froome's numbers to an expert make you feel any differently?

its what many have been asking for ... though falls a little short to my mind.  I would have preferred some details from 2010 too
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 22, 2013, 10:51
To get his back on track then - Does Sky being willing to submit some of Froome's numbers to an expert make you feel any differently?

its what many have been asking for ... though falls a little short to my mind.  I would have preferred some details from 2010 too

That Sky got L'Equipe, owned by ASO who dont want doping positives in their race, and they inturn asked Grappe who flipped up on Armstrong in 2001 makes the whole thing about Froome's numbers ridiculous. Also they only gave selected numbers. Again sowing more doubt rather than less.

It again throws light on how much do Sky really pay attention to detail. Why L'Equipe who are biased? Why Grappe who has made a huge error in his past on numbers? Why only some numbers? All points to hiding the obvious.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 22, 2013, 10:57
yes. 

Its hard for them ... I get that.  They release some numbers and we the fans are still not satisfied :D

But what they have shown him, who they chose and his history was always going to raise questions.   
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 22, 2013, 11:14
Well he did have to cope with a mum dying of cancer in 2010, when he was only 25.

Having faced similar, I can understand why he might not have been very motivated at that point in his life.
Wtf? I mean, WTF?

I have no reason whatsoever to be rude, and hopefully you will not see this as being rude, but, it is very well documented Chris Froome's mother unfortunately died pre - 2008 Tour de France. Please do not misuse such tragic information.
Honestly this bilharzia thing is just a perfect example of what i hate about the current atmosphere in cycling

people honestly believe that Sky and Froome have got together and made up a disease he had to cover for the fact that he is on some new sort of doping and they wanted to cover for the improvements they knew that would come from that doping?

what did Sky have to gain. they had Wiggins and where happy to dump Froome till the vuelta. why would they have made up this story in advance to cover for an improvement when they were happy to let him go. and Froome did not do it on his own as it was the team that found the blood results

it is a common disease in Africa, i think one of the most prevalent after malaria. it is treatable but lots of people die from it every year because of issues with detecting it and lack of access to quick treatment. it fact it would be great if now every one has heard of Bilharzia they could donate money to getting rid of it instead of arguing about whether some guy had it 2 or 3 years ago.

pretty sure even the evil Lance at his peak could not have come up with such an elaborate plan as people are seeing here.
Good point.

On the other hand we have the following, Dave Brailsford needing a 'cycling doctor who was capable of dealing with extreme heath' after the death of a soigneur/mechanic in the Vuelta 2010. He could have rung Roger Palfreeman who was let go from Team Sky earlier that year, he must have lost his phonenumber.

Sometimes timing is very important. When Froome had his brake through at that 2011 Vuelta and his Pena Cabarga uphill sprint the bilharzia statement was released, immediately. I am not saying the ladd never had bilharzia but the story is somehow not straight.  And, Team Sky's PR department have done a pretty pee poor job managing it, but whats new there. They even need good ol' David Millar at times when sister proves not up for the job.

We have Froome himself stating the Bilharzia doing the opposite of what R-EPO does to a body, we have the team doctor - whats his name - stating his bloodprofile pre - Vuelta 2011 is stable.
Well, that is contradicting all the way I would say.
Now here's a conspiracy theory - this thread has got very animated, some might say verging on the nasty and personal, around the same time as The Clinic (and the rest of the CN forums) goes offline.

I guess some people need to find a place to vent.
Are you member of the welcoming committee or something?
yes. 

Its hard for them ... I get that.  They release some numbers and we the fans are still not satisfied :D

But what they have shown him, who they chose and his history was always going to raise questions.   
I think Grappe has done a good job, but the data alledgly shown to him is not complete. They could have given Ed Coyle or Andy Coggan a ring too. Vayer would have come to the same conclusion. But are 'we, the people' - lol - let too believe Froome's weight was always within a 900 grams steady margin? There was a foto on twitter some time ago of Froome in the Team Sky bus, the man was a walking skeleton. How does he manage that without sickness all year round?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 22, 2013, 11:17
yes. 

Its hard for them ... I get that.  They release some numbers and we the fans are still not satisfied :D

But what they have shown him, who they chose and his history was always going to raise questions.

It's not hard for them. They made that decision on purpose. That they picked that route was always going to backfire with 'dark side' and 'clinic' regulars, but would appease most fans and with the release of the 'not doping with these numbers' message that was going to get out it was a pr stunt that worked.

Froome might a well have made a "I'm sorry some of you dont believe in miracles..............." speech.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 22, 2013, 11:18
Grappe never said Froome's number show he doesn't dope.
Title: Chris Froome
Post by: z-tech on July 22, 2013, 11:34
Grappe never said Froome's number show he doesn't dope.

"The expert, Fred Grappe, said that Froome's dossier indicated nothing suspicious"

"Fred Grappe, gave Froome a clean bill of health"

Just two of many similar quotes over the last four days.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 11:37
Claudio, not that it makes much difference in the ling run, the annoucement came on the rest day after the TT. I had a read back earlier today to see when it was first mentioned.

Talk of illness before the race and a comment in july, which matches with the timing post california, that he had been treated and was better. But furst mention of bilharzia was the rest day.

With the ongoing treatment it is quite hard to understand. The stuff i read today was talking about follow ups and anti bodies and indictors afterwards but saying that the patient returned to full health straight afterwards. None of the reports talk about impact on blood values, as it seems it is not something they consider that strongly, eggs in faeces seems to be the standard testing.

Main issues seem to be body attacking itself, an can reduce your immune system so often causes issues with other diseases. Not sure how that would appear in passport.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 22, 2013, 11:38
Grappe never said Froome's number show he doesn't dope.

He said nothing abnormal was happening didnt he? That means no doping surely.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 22, 2013, 11:39
Yeh it was a PR exercise no doubt, but Grappe himself hasn't done anything wrong. He analysed the data and reported what it told him (although we can't be 100% sure without seeing the data ourselves). He could have offered his opinion but I don't think many people value his opinion very highly.

Dinz - he was referring to how well the data given to him (2011 Vuelta onwards) fit his power curve model, "no anomalies" means that there were no big outliers in the data he had, nothing to do with doping. At least that is my understanding based on the translations.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 11:51
"The expert, Fred Grappe, said that Froome's dossier indicated nothing suspicious"

"Fred Grappe, gave Froome a clean bill of health"

Just two of many similar quotes over the last four days.

You cannot take 2nd hand quotes to prove someone said something.

If you want to prove Grappe said those things, show us where HE said it. Not where someone else said he said it, where he said it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 22, 2013, 12:36
Bit of a non win using L'Equipe.

Its pretty hard to find a newspaper that isnt owned by NewsCorp, 21st Century Fox or whatever they are called. Real forward planning would have involved giving the data to one of Murdochs newspapers :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 22, 2013, 14:07
Bit of a non win using L'Equipe.

Its pretty hard to find a newspaper that isnt owned by NewsCorp, 21st Century Fox or whatever they are called. Real forward planning would have involved giving the data to one of Murdochs newspapers :D

I thought it was the best selection in the circumstances, given the necessity for a non-Murdoch hookup. L'Equipe is a fairly reputable "doubting Thomas" in the world of sports news but it also rides the line quite well between French-specific and international renown.

Grappe's credibility took a hit over the years with successive bland statements being dressed up by other mouthpieces to suggest approval of Armstrong - not unlike the present situation with Froome - but his years of good work with young kids at FDJ works in his favour.

Le Monde would also have been a great choice with names Mandard and de Mondenard in the stable but it's too French and would automatically have meant using Vayer-Portoleau. And as we now know, Vayer wouldn't have bought it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 22, 2013, 14:53
With the ongoing treatment it is quite hard to understand. The stuff i read today was talking about follow ups and anti bodies and indictors afterwards but saying that the patient returned to full health straight afterwards. None of the reports talk about impact on blood values, as it seems it is not something they consider that strongly, eggs in faeces seems to be the standard testing.

Main issues seem to be body attacking itself, an can reduce your immune system so often causes issues with other diseases. Not sure how that would appear in passport.
First of all, I am no doctor, not an expert in tropical diseases, I don't think any here is that in here. I just pointed out one of the many inconsistensies in the stories. Reverse epo and stuff.

What you are talking about - immune system - is with my basic knowledge a matter of white blood cells, not the red cells that transfer oxigin to the muscles.
He said nothing abnormal was happening didnt he? That means no doping surely.
He said the files shown to him fitted right in his powerprofile, he did not make a further conclusion. But, Grappe already came to this conclusion before, when he did his own calculations of the power outputs, and, dont forget, Cycling Weekly was happy to rapport Fred's findings. Too bad Fred's calculations on the Bonascre were at fault, he measured the climb to the finishline while the actual climb was untill the 1100 metres from the finisline. Thats like saying Mont Ventoux is a 21 kilometre climb, while anyone who ever did this climb knows it is 15.6 ish, the false flat is just what it is: false flat. It hurts but the forest is where the real hurt lies...

That said, as a scientist, you just cant go and say because someone has a certain power output he MUST be doping. There is no proof in a number, there are only circumstances. Science doesnt know the human limit, yes 100%VO2Max - lol -, not the limit in efficiency etc etc.

Vayer for instance says a 411 watt output is dubious, a 409 watt is okay, that is his line. I think that is too harsh.
I read his magazine and he gives Indurain a pass for his first three Tour wins for instance, but Indurain didnt need to go full in the mountains, he destroyed everyone in the TT's. Cappuccino's Sestriere in 1992 gets a pass. Well, everyone could know what Cappuccino was one in those days.
Etc etc.
I thought it was the best selection in the circumstances, given the necessity for a non-Murdoch hookup. L'Equipe is a fairly reputable "doubting Thomas" in the world of sports news but it also rides the line quite well between French-specific and international renown.

Grappe's credibility took a hit over the years with successive bland statements being dressed up by other mouthpieces to suggest approval of Armstrong - not unlike the present situation with Froome - but his years of good work with young kids at FDJ works in his favour.

Le Monde would also have been a great choice with names Mandard and de Mondenard in the stable but it's too French and would automatically have meant using Vayer-Portoleau. And as we now know, Vayer wouldn't have bought it.
Given the fact Grappe already hit the Cycling Weekly headlines a week ago a 'second opinion' would have been nice. Anyone can say about Vayer what they want but he knows what doping does to athletes. First hand.

Does that mean he is right on every count? Doubt it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 22, 2013, 15:35
Bit of a non win using L'Equipe.

Its pretty hard to find a newspaper that isnt owned by NewsCorp, 21st Century Fox or whatever they are called. Real forward planning would have involved giving the data to one of Murdochs newspapers :D

No Dim because even the most braindead fans (radioshack ;) ) would not believe giving them to a Murdoch publication would produce an 'honest' result.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 22, 2013, 16:30
This is a sad thread.

I am reading that he can never prove he is clean... but will always have those trying to prove he isn't.

Makes you want to win Le Tour doesn't it?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 22, 2013, 16:35
This is a sad thread.

I am reading that he can never prove he is clean... but will always have those trying to prove he isn't.

Makes you want to win Le Tour doesn't it?

Thats unfortunately the state cycling is in, winning immediately raises suspicion. Best route is just to come second all the time like Andy Schleck :D

Its going to be an interesting challenge for the UCI to raise peoples confidence in anti doping to a point where they believe everything they see again.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 22, 2013, 16:37
The issue has been so out of hand for so long though Dim that the online experts would never buy what the UCI was selling.

I think that the sporting element has become secondary to the excitement of a good conspiracy about physical enhancements.

Sad times.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 22, 2013, 18:34
See my post in the UCI election thread with Cooksons 7 point plan (http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1425.msg110707).

If he gets in and he's able to push it through it will have an impact
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 22, 2013, 18:36
Walsh in the Sunday Times
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 22, 2013, 18:38
The issue has been so out of hand for so long though Dim that the online experts would never buy what the UCI was selling.

I think that the sporting element has becomer secondary to the excitement of a good conspiracy about physical enhancements.

Sad times.

Those sort of people will always be there, Jimmy. The only difference is the internet has given them a mouth.

Meanwhile, the real cycling fans enjoy the racing with their eyes open, aware that cheating goes on in sport, and has done so in cycle racing since its inception.

It really isn't such a biggie in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 22, 2013, 20:41
A little google-foo turns up some interesting stuff about the peloton destroyer Froome.

http://www.kenyacycling.org/chris-froome-rider-profile/

Impressing with strong performances at the Giro del Capo and the Giro dell’Appennino, Froome was awarded with a ride in the Tour de France in only his second year as a professional. He almost did not make it to Paris, after team-mate Moises Dueñas’ positive test for EPO, but the team soldiered on with Froome taking 84th overall after strong performances in the mountains.

All those lower-ranked results he had!

2009
Cape Argus Giro del Capo Challenge two
 Day 2 win: http://www.capriwheelers.co.za/News/DisplayNewsItem.aspx?niid=891
 He really crushed those worldtour elites...

2007
Tour of Japan; stage six
Giro delle Regione (under 23s); stage five

2006
Tour of Mauritius; stage two
Tour of Mauritius; stage three

2005
Tour of Mauritius; stage two
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 22, 2013, 22:51
The issue has been so out of hand for so long though Dim that the online experts would never buy what the UCI was selling.

I think that the sporting element has become secondary to the excitement of a good conspiracy about physical enhancements.

Sad times.

Sky have no one but themselves to blame. They yelled to the highest mountain tops that they were going to be super squeaky clean. Then they ruined it by hiring Leinders, Yates, Barry, Julich and getting 2 guys from the Grupetto to the winners spot in the TdF at the same time the UCI has been proven itself to be so corrupt that it barely can tie its shoelaces without making contradictory statements about it all and coming over all mafioso.

UCI in its current state would never be selling clean cycling, well not the real thing, but they do sell copy chinese clean cycling off the back of trucks at races ;)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 22, 2013, 23:42
How can people criticise us for attacking Walsh when 2 paragraphs in he is comparing Dave Bailsford to Henry V in Shakespear's play??????

That is the most fanboyish sentence i have ever read.
Thats got absolutely nothing to do with doping. On  every level he is absolutely infatuated with his team.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 22, 2013, 23:51
How can people criticise us for attacking Walsh when 2 paragraphs in he is comparing Dave Bailsford to Henry V in Shakespear's play??????

That is the most fanboyish sentence i have ever read.
Thats got absolutely nothing to do with doping. On  every level he is absolutely infatuated with his team in ways even La Florecita would cringe at.

That is because the piece was not written with you in mind as the audience. It was in a Sunday newspaper, not on a doping forum in a remote corner of the internet.

He found nothing. Maybe there was nothing to find. Maybe he just didn't find it. But whatmore do you expect him to say?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 00:00
That is because the piece was not written with you in mind as the audience. It was in a Sunday newspaper, not on a doping forum in a remote corner of the internet.

He found nothing. Maybe there was nothing to find. Maybe he just didn't find it. But whatmore do you expect him to say?

What has any of this got to do with the post i wrote?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 00:02
Everything
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 23, 2013, 00:10
Moderator Comment OK, time to rein this thread in a bit. The man RTBF likes to call "the White Kenyan" for some doubtful reason is not currently front and centre in this thread, so let's everyone get right back on topic, please. Thanks! :)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 00:13
On  every level he is absolutely infatuated with his team in ways even La Florecita would cringe at.

I don't see it. The cheerleader of the Lance haters, drugs-buster supreme, turns soft and rolls over, looking the other way? Nah.

Every single positive thing about Sky / Froome, you criticise and shout down. And in a way, you're always going to be right, aren't you? You can sit here for decades telling us Sky are doping, and they just haven't caught them yet. They release data, but it's to the wrong person. They embed a journalist, but he's a patsy fanboy. Everything they do is wrong, or a conspiracy, or complete BS.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 23, 2013, 00:24
Moderator Comment We need to stop criticising each other and stick to facts and reasoned opinions. There isn't much new under the sun in this thread and taking a dig at others isn't going to change that.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 00:29
The Walsh embedding is equivalent to the "look them in the eye" testing method. He didn't want to find anything, he didn't find anything. Serving up sentimental BS to facilitate the July fan's dismissal of legitimate questions over Sky. Same with the Grappe report. Good enough for people who really don't want to consider the possibility of this glossy team being enhanced.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 23, 2013, 00:39
feel free to move my comment right above to the other thread. was being lazy and do not know how i can move it. then you can delete this comment too

I wasn't singling you out, DinZ. The thread was already on another planet. But yes, I've moved all the Cookson-UCI items.  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 23, 2013, 00:39
Im really not sure what point everyone is making with the whole Bilharzia/Schistosomiasis

Some are questioning wether it gets killed in one dose and goes away (Which is true in short infections), or if it cant kill the eggs and so there can be repeated incidents of the infection (True in initially long infections where the eggs are laid and work their way into organs)

But im not totally sure what the actual end point of the argument is..

Is it:
that the Schistosomiasis treatment could somehow be beneficial?
That by proving he lied about repeated treatments that puts his other claims under the microscope?
Is it do prove/disprove the reason for his poor form in 2009/10/11
or is it just for the sake of argument.

Im really not sure what the whole Bilzaria thing has to do with it all, in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Havetts on July 23, 2013, 00:48
Well, according to Froome he has had treatments against bilharzia a few times after 2011. Which basically does the opposite of EPO, but somehow Froome has remained a very stable blood passport, according to Grappe. So how does that work? You'd expect blood values to fluctuate, to put it midly.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 23, 2013, 00:51
i am pretty sure it is nothing to do with the ongoing treatment as he has no TUE for that and impact is not meant to be beneficial.

that was kind of my point earlier. the only possible outcome of trying to prove that he is incorrect about it is that they made the whole thing up to cover up for his improvement in performance. Not only that but it was a pre-thought out plan, so the team OK, we are going to start doping you now but we need a way to explain it when it works (no one else that dopes has ever done this but they thought oh well just in case...). so they got him to pretend to be ill in advance. then prepared the story and released it at the same time as he started charging at the vuelta. I am sorry but to me that is getting into tin hat conspiracy territory. 




Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 01:18
Well, according to Froome he has had treatments against bilharzia a few times after 2011. Which basically does the opposite of EPO, but somehow Froome has remained a very stable blood passport, according to Grappe. So how does that work? You'd expect blood values to fluctuate, to put it midly.
Grappe only saw (limited) power data. And a record of drug testing.

I've seen people suggest some mechanism of overcompensation where Froome's body thinks it needs to keep producing rbcs to replace those killed by the disease, which he benefit from. Too far-fetched IMO. I considered that he might have a TUE for some beneficial treatment but with more detail that doesn't seem believeable. Either an excuse to the public for the performance jump or an excuse given to UCI for BP irregularities at some point. Probably being investigated too intently, maybe a bit of a red herring.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 23, 2013, 01:46
Pretty sure he has said he did not have any kind of TUE, but then does he need one as the drug is not banned? so would he need a TUE if the resulting behaviour of that drug could been seen on his blood profile? things like this are too complicated for me. Also pretty sure treatment times do not line up with tenerife trips which many seem to think is when they would have been doing any doping
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 23, 2013, 02:57
But what more do you expect him to say?


How about waking up to inconsistencies that are staring him right in the face?

Quote
"What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he'd done previously to see if there were changes. There weren't. His blood values remained the same and whatever the reasons for him riding consistently in that Vuelta, in my opinion it wasn't down to him doing things he shouldn't have done." Freeman's admission of initial concern was reassuring.

His desire to investigate even more so.
   
Brailsford believes that Froome's progress in 2011 was in part related to his successfully managing his bilharzia, a debilitating condition caused by a parasite that attacks red cells.

If his blood values remained the same, how could his “progress” (great way of understating what happened) in 2011 be related to managing bilharzia? If his blood values remained the same, obviously the parasite wasn’t attacking his red cells, right?

Quote
he has excelled and been accused of doping solely because he has been so good.

No, he has been accused because his performance has changed so much. That’s very different from saying because he has been so good.

Quote
They were wrong when Armstrong was winning. And they are wrong now about Froome.

Uh, the people who were wrong about Armstrong are by and large the people who support Froome. The people who criticize Froome are mostly the people who were right about Armstrong. Walsh knows this, but he's so infatuated with Froome, and is so positive that Froome is clean, that he wants to portray anyone who disagrees with him as always being on the wrong side of doping opinions--and what better way than to manufacture the notion that Armstrong supporters are Froome critics?

And notice that there isn’t a shred of doubt expressed by Walsh. He could have said, “I can find no evidence of doping”, but no, he’s as positive of his opinion as the most hard-core Froome critic is positive of his opposite opinion. And yet all the people who support Froome criticize those who suggest he might be doping as believing they are sure of this when they can't be. But when Walsh acts just as sure with even less reason to be, not a peep from these people. Which just shows that this argument, for them, is not about being objective or honest, it's about clearing Froome.

Quote
Is it:
that the Schistosomiasis treatment could somehow be beneficial? No, though possibly the disease itself could be.
That by proving he lied about repeated treatments that puts his other claims under the microscope? It just makes it impossible to know what his treatment history is. And why should he fabricate it?
Is it to prove/disprove the reason for his poor form in 2009/10/11. By suggesting that it was a reason for his earlier poor form, he is accepting the argument of critics that his vastly improved form demands an explanation out of the ordinary "just got better with age/training". But by emphasizing that his passport values didn't change, he is, apparently ignorant of the fact, dismissing that possibility.

Froome/Sky are the ones who have implied that his disease was responsible for holding him back prior to 2011. Why, then, are they unable to get known facts about the disease and its treatment correctly? How can they claim that he has required multiple treatments without even mentioning how unusual that is? And how can they claim that his passport values didn't change and not see that that completely undercuts the argument that his disease affected his performance prior to 2011? And that it equally undercuts the Froome/Julich story that the disease was discovered from blood testing?

Isn't anyone the least bit perplexed that a team that claims it is much more attentive to other details than other teams has made a total hash of describing Froome's disease, its effect on his performance, and the effect of treatments?

I don't know whether Froome is clean or not. I have never said I was sure he wasn't. But even if he is clean, he and Sky are handling this in a grossly unprofessional manner, and should be called out on it. It would be very, very easy for Brailsford to put out a factoid on the disease, approved by medical experts that he surely could contact and would help him, and explain in detail how Froome's treatment differs from the usual treatment, if it does, and why. It would also be easy to explain specifically how they believe the disease hampered Froome's performances, though how they are going to rationalize this with passport values, I don't know. Questions like this have clear answers, and publicizing these answers is not revealing some "trade secret" to  other teams. Brailsford could also release pre-2011 power values to Grappe, indeed, I can't for the life of me understand why he couldn't publicize them. They are so old by now how can they possibly be used by other teams.

This would be the professional thing to do. There is clear precedent for such transparency at all levels in society today. Yet Brailsford, who never ceases to brag about how professional and attentive to detail Sky is, and who keeps asking "what more can we do", can't manage this.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 23, 2013, 03:14
yes to all that MI said...very well

We as fans /detractors were not the ones that brought the Bilharzia into play...it was brought up by Sky and Froome...

It is the Sky pedantic proclamations that has led to an outcry...
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 07:32
Not really. I don't think anybody in Sky can say anything without it being leapt upon and twisted out of all recognition.

 I think you either accept Froome had Bilhazia, or you think he is lying. If you accept it, then you have to accept that such an illness will have affected his performance.  If you accept that he has Bilhazia then the notion that this is all being cooked up to explain away a drug fuelled progression starts to look a bit tinfoil. The fact that different key players in Sky have given differing accounts of the bilhazia demonstrates that it isn't a big deal for them. If it was, don't you think that this team, lead by Dr Evil, with the UCI, the ASO in their pockets, might just have bothered to get the key part of their story straight?

Anyway, by way of a sanity break, here's a more level headed view from somebody on the Sky-USPS comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4XutKxTMco&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(From a USPS rider)

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Flo on July 23, 2013, 07:53
That video :fp well I thought it was cool to hear him talking about AC.

Bilharzia, I think he may have had it, but a lot of the stories don't make sense so I definitely think sky have made up some things and are lying about other things.

PS I think it's a bit cheap to call Frankie's view more level headed, thereby implying that the view of the doubters isn't level headed.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 23, 2013, 07:59
Bilharzia, I think he may have had it, but a lot of the stories don't make sense so I definitely think sky have made up some things and are lying about other things.

TINFOIL ALERT
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 08:05
I think some of the stuff coming out of the mouths of the 'doubters' is very far from being level-headed.

What is more, I know that some of the other doubters would agree with that. They don't like it because anything interesting or thought-provoking they say gets weakened by association.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 23, 2013, 08:11
yes to all that MI said...very well

We as fans /detractors were not the ones that brought the Bilharzia into play...it was brought up by Sky and Froome...

It is the Sky pedantic proclamations that has led to an outcry...

Hang on, bought into play?

he said in an interview in Vuelta that he had been sick earlier in the year but hoped it was all cured. he mentioned it was Bilharzia he had. that's not really 'bringing into play' it was one small part of an interview saying i was sick.

The details have been confused as they probably did not think they needed to provide an exact timeline with exact treatments

how many riders get sick and how many provide a detailed timeline for their recovery and treatment. none. so why would they think they need to?

i also think people are confusing arguments, sky have said that Froome was sick earlier in 2011 and that impacted his performance that year. I am not sure they have put this forward as the single reason for his improvement. I think a lot of people nothing to do with Sky have said that but i am not sure the team itself are broadcasting it as they do not really feel they need to. they have responded to a few questions but seems that it is everyone outside that is making it a much bigger deal.

I think the majority of the recent questions about Bilharzia have been in corners of the internet and largely over the last week or so. and you wonder why the team has not put out a 'factoid' on bilharzia to cater to the latest crack pot theory.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 08:16
What you have to realise, dinz, is that all the hypothetical stuff and cod analysis you see on internet forums becomes a given in the minds of some people and then gets attributed to Sky.

Its self-perpetuating.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 23, 2013, 08:19
So Walsh quoting a Sky doctor saying there were no biopassport irregularities is actually made up?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 08:29
No, but assumptions are being made about the implications of that based on people googling 'Bilharzia'. These assumptions are being passed off as fact and added to the cacophony . Personally I'd rather hear from somebody that knows a bit about medicine...say err...a doctor, for example...rather than a bedroom expert.

If you've faith in the Google experts then maybe consult them should you ever get seriously ill, rather than go to a doctor.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 23, 2013, 08:32
Ok, so we can't assume that 'Bilharzia' affected Froome's cycling performance because none of us are experts in parasites?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 23, 2013, 08:37
Ok - this is all getting a bit x-files worthy now.   :fp

seriously - you think they made up Bilharzia ... for what?  to have a story for his improvements ... I guess that is a possibility, but even if that is the case, why would they bother continuing with the treatment argument?

Why wouldnt they just say he had it, he was treated, now he is better?

That he had that disease is plausible to me.  That he had a re-occurance is also plausible.  That he continued to take additional treatments for preventative or cautionary measure is also plausible.  It might be true, it might not be ... but I dont buy some huge conspiracy or cover up.

(I still think he is doping, I just dont think they need a story like Bilharzia to cover it up - people are reading too much into it)

As for Walsh ... he is a journalist.  He calls things like he sees them.  Maybe he has been hoodwinked by Sky, maybe he is a genuine believer.  Maybe the doctor he spoke to lied to him, maybe that is the truth as they know it ... but suggesting that he is part of some coverup is going a bit far I think.

Biopassport irregularities - how would anyone know?  The UCI panel dont release those results.  So anyone saying 'there is no irregularities' is just saying they dont know of any.  If the UCI is saying that - well, no one trusts the UCI anyway, so its still irrelevant.

Grappe - for all we know, his calculations take into account sickness - so where he is saying the values are consistent ... he may well be meaning consistent for someone undergoing treatment for a blood-borne disease.  All Grappe confirmed was that his numbers were not what Grappe considered inhuman or miraculous.  That they were consistent.   If the treatment didnt affect him that much (which obviously it didnt as apart from early 2012 he has been fairly consistent in his performaces) then that sounds right.

If he was taking something like AICAR or the like, the new types of peptides and stuff ... then his power numbers are likely to be consistent ... so this fits for me.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 23, 2013, 09:16
Ok - this is all getting a bit x-files worthy now.   :fp

+1 I think there are some folk out there in internet land who will be gutted if there is no top secret conspiracy theory involving espionage and government agencies :)

I am off to enjoy cycling for what it is. A great spectacle and passtime.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: search on July 23, 2013, 09:23
No, but assumptions are being made about the implications of that based on people googling 'Bilharzia'. These assumptions are being passed off as fact and added to the cacophony . Personally I'd rather hear from somebody that knows a bit about medicine...say err...a doctor, for example...rather than a bedroom expert.

If you've faith in the Google experts then maybe consult them should you ever get seriously ill, rather than go to a doctor.

it's not exactly on that topic, but there was an interview with a german doctor for tropical medicine in radio

http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/sport/2185294/

he said, it's very well possible that Froome's poor performances around 2010 were cause by the Bilharzia, as it leads to a very low hemoglobin value. But he also mentions, that it's not explicable for him why Froome is still taking medicines versus the parasites (what, according to Brailsford, he still does). Usually you take those medicines for a duration of three days, the longest he ever heard of is two weeks, and with Froome it's three years now. That strikes him as odd - but he also says that the medication itself has no performance enhancing effect.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 09:46
That is on topic, and it is a valuable opinion.

I'm still not sure what benefit Froome would gain by falsely claiming to still have Bilharzia.  I've yet to see anything authoritative about its effect on the bio-passport.

If this is a conspiracy, it is one hell of a complicated one. Armstrong's (and most of he rest of the peloton's) was pretty simple  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 10:20
+1 I think there are some folk out there in internet land who will be gutted if there is no top secret conspiracy theory involving espionage and government agencies :)

I am off to enjoy cycling for what it is. A great spectacle and passtime.
Gotcha ;)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Jimmythecuckoo on July 23, 2013, 10:22
Aha!

Dont worry... after watching 28 Tours now I do know what it is. It will take some time to call it a true sport again.

But I watch Barcelona in the Champions League and hear the commentators going on about how much fitter they are in the last 20 minutes of games. I have the same wry smile.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 11:16
Everything

I observed that Walsh compared bailsford to Henry V which is the most ridiculous comparison one could ever produce and shows that he is absolutely infatuated with Bailsford.

You said the piece was not written with me in mind which makes no sense since whether it is written with me in mind or not, the comment from Walsh was still ridiculous, no matter what.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 11:17
What a cringefest #WouldntTouchItWithATenFootPole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAlDoAtV7Y

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 11:19
I observed that Walsh compared bailsford to Henry V which is the most ridiculous comparison one could ever produce and shows that he is absolutely infatuated with Bailsford.

You said the piece was not written with me in mind which makes no sense since whether it is written with me in mind or not, the comment from Walsh was still ridiculous, no matter what.

Maybe Walsh is just a crap journalist.

personal attack not need kabs , edit and we will approve it               Modified, thank you!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 11:21
Maybe Walsh is just a crap journalist. Not all of us have the gift of an elegant writing style *Cough*

What is that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 11:41
I observed that Walsh compared bailsford to Henry V which is the most ridiculous comparison one could ever produce and shows that he is absolutely infatuated with Bailsford.  You said the piece was not written with me in mind which makes no sense since whether it is written with me in mind or not, the comment from Walsh was still ridiculous, no matter what.

Journalistic licence? They use analogies all the time so 'ordinary folk' can get a handle on a specific topic. I don't see the link between an analogy and infatuation.

And the bilharzia - it attacks the blood cells, but would the blood tests for the passport show that up? Sky have said it only came to light after detailed blood analysis. So maybe the blood cells weren't working as well as they should (thereby affecting performance), but they were still there in the same number. So any treatment will stop the attack on the cells by killing the parasites, improving effectiveness, improving performance, without increasing the number of cells in the blood.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 11:42

How about waking up to inconsistencies that are staring him right in the face?

If his blood values remained the same, how could his “progress” (great way of understating what happened) in 2011 be related to managing bilharzia? If his blood values remained the same, obviously the parasite wasn’t attacking his red cells, right?

No, he has been accused because his performance has changed so much. That’s very different from saying because he has been so good.

Uh, the people who were wrong about Armstrong are by and large the people who support Froome. The people who criticize Froome are mostly the people who were right about Armstrong. Walsh knows this, but he's so infatuated with Froome, and is so positive that Froome is clean, that he wants to portray anyone who disagrees with him as always being on the wrong side of doping opinions--and what better way than to manufacture the notion that Armstrong supporters are Froome critics?

And notice that there isn’t a shred of doubt expressed by Walsh. He could have said, “I can find no evidence of doping”, but no, he’s as positive of his opinion as the most hard-core Froome critic is positive of his opposite opinion. And yet all the people who support Froome criticize those who suggest he might be doping as believing they are sure of this when they can't be. But when Walsh acts just as sure with even less reason to be, not a peep from these people. Which just shows that this argument, for them, is not about being objective or honest, it's about clearing Froome.

Froome/Sky are the ones who have implied that his disease was responsible for holding him back prior to 2011. Why, then, are they unable to get known facts about the disease and its treatment correctly? How can they claim that he has required multiple treatments without even mentioning how unusual that is? And how can they claim that his passport values didn't change and not see that that completely undercuts the argument that his disease affected his performance prior to 2011? And that it equally undercuts the Froome/Julich story that the disease was discovered from blood testing?

Isn't anyone the least bit perplexed that a team that claims it is much more attentive to other details than other teams has made a total hash of describing Froome's disease, its effect on his performance, and the effect of treatments?

I don't know whether Froome is clean or not. I have never said I was sure he wasn't. But even if he is clean, he and Sky are handling this in a grossly unprofessional manner, and should be called out on it. It would be very, very easy for Brailsford to put out a factoid on the disease, approved by medical experts that he surely could contact and would help him, and explain in detail how Froome's treatment differs from the usual treatment, if it does, and why. It would also be easy to explain specifically how they believe the disease hampered Froome's performances, though how they are going to rationalize this with passport values, I don't know. Questions like this have clear answers, and publicizing these answers is not revealing some "trade secret" to  other teams. Brailsford could also release pre-2011 power values to Grappe, indeed, I can't for the life of me understand why he couldn't publicize them. They are so old by now how can they possibly be used by other teams.

This would be the professional thing to do. There is clear precedent for such transparency at all levels in society today. Yet Brailsford, who never ceases to brag about how professional and attentive to detail Sky is, and who keeps asking "what more can we do", can't manage this.

Read this post and beyond. MI explains the discrepancies in SKy's story on Bilharzia but does not speculate on why and certainly does not offer any "conspiracy theories".

Yet since then a bunch of people, seemingly without reading his post and addressing any of his points  dismiss it all by saying  that people who think froome made bilharzia up are conspiracy theorists.

Ughh thats not what he said.  Some of you are clearly and consistently putting words into people's mouths liberally without a care in the world as to whether they said it. A fascist mentality of if someone doesn't agree with me its fine to not play by the rules and fabricate evidence against them.

I for example certainly never said that Grappe was "the wrong expert to give data too". i have NEVER disputed Grappe's credentials.

 Did that stop dools from accusing me of saying it. Of course not.  Can't adress any points they make, lets make some up and hope it hits the mark.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 11:50
And the bilharzia - it attacks the blood cells, but would the blood tests for the passport show that up? Sky have said it only came to light after detailed blood analysis. So maybe the blood cells weren't working as well as they should (thereby affecting performance), but they were still there in the same number. So any treatment will stop the attack on the cells by killing the parasites, improving effectiveness, improving performance, without increasing the number of cells in the blood.

Sorry why is this being directed at me? What has this got to do with my comments on Walsh Bailsford and Henry V?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 23, 2013, 12:05
round and round we go where is stops no one knows

again we had some great informative posts mixed in with a huge amount of personal attacks and crap

can we please stay on topic 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: KeithJamesMc on July 23, 2013, 12:12
Watch this crazy mountain-biker jumping over Froome at the TdF

http://youtu.be/vorfem3_lbI

Not sure if it is a fake.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 12:20
I observed that Walsh compared bailsford to Henry V which is the most ridiculous comparison one could ever produce and shows that he is absolutely infatuated with Bailsford.

You said the piece was not written with me in mind which makes no sense since whether it is written with me in mind or not, the comment from Walsh was still ridiculous, no matter what.

I prefer to take a bit of a wider view on things to be honest.

Walsh wrote that piece for the Sunday Times. What is the readership of The Sunday Times? Middle-aged non-cyclists with a passing interest in the recently finished French festival of cycling. The Henry V thing was to invoke the idea of a Warrior King marshalling his troops on the eve of battle. He's a writer...he's doing his job.  Some might like his work, some might not. He clearly is impressed by Sky. That isn't a crime. Itiisn't a crime to like Sky.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: wwabbit on July 23, 2013, 12:30
The way I see it, there are 3 lines of attack against Chris Froome regarding the Bilharzia issue.

1. The inconsistencies in Sky's description of Froome's Bilharzia case proves that the whole Bilharzia thing was made up to cover up his performance gain in 2011. Personally I don't see the inconsistencies as proof that Froome never had Bilharzia. The Sky people that made the comments were not experts on Bilharzia so were probably just mistaken in the details.

2. The inconsistencies in Sky's description of Froome's Bilharzia mean that Sky is lying. If they are lying about Bilharzia, that means they are lying about everything including not doping, therefore Sky must be doping. Well, I don't think this really requires a response.

3. Froome's continued Praziquantel treatment despite Bilharzia being eradicated from his system so that he can obtain TUEs to use corticosteroids to reduce the side effects of the treatment. It is still debatable whether Praziquantel is supposed to completely eradicate all the parasites and eggs, or if Bilharzia can reoccur when the drug fails to kill all the eggs. The TUEs has been covered (unless, of course you believe Walsh or Farrell are lairs).
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 12:38
That is about as good a summary as is possible.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 23, 2013, 12:49
Who actually said they invented the bilharzia story?  :slow
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 23, 2013, 12:52
Some conspiracy theorists on internet forums.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 23, 2013, 12:54
Some conspiracy theorists on internet forums.
Why do you hate cycling?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 13:30
I prefer to take a bit of a wider view on things to be honest.

Walsh wrote that piece for the Sunday Times. What is the readership of The Sunday Times? Middle-aged non-cyclists with a passing interest in the recently finished French festival of cycling. The Henry V thing was to invoke the idea of a Warrior King marshalling his troops on the eve of battle. He's a writer...he's doing his job.  Some might like his work, some might not. He clearly is impressed by Sky. That isn't a crime. Itiisn't a crime to like Sky.
Right so now we can dispense with the idea that this is an anti doping investigative journalist lending Sky some credibility, or the idea that the article is of any use at all except maybe to bulimic cycling fans.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 13:35
That's up to you. I'm happy to not just see things as binary.

For what its worth, I don't view Walsh's embed as proof of anything.

Anyway, it won't be long before Kimnage pipes up about Walsh. He won't be able to help himself.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 13:47
For what its worth, I don't view Walsh's embed as proof of anything.

Isn't that the problem? There is no proof of doping, and there can be no proof of being clean. It's a small piece of evidence (much discredited, like all of it) that there is no doping going on.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Sizzle on July 23, 2013, 13:47
No, but assumptions are being made about the implications of that based on people googling 'Bilharzia'. These assumptions are being passed off as fact and added to the cacophony . Personally I'd rather hear from somebody that knows a bit about medicine...say err...a doctor, for example...rather than a bedroom expert.

If you've faith in the Google experts then maybe consult them should you ever get seriously ill, rather than go to a doctor.

Where can I find me one of those bedroom experts? Just in case, you understand  ;)    :lol

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 14:07
Where can I find me one of those bedroom experts? Just in case, you understand  ;)    :lol

:karen Reckon I could do with some experts myself, Sizzle!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 14:09
Where can I find me one of those bedroom experts? Just in case, you understand  ;)    :lol

They usually have tattoos, a filthy laugh, and a dirty box

 :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 14:28
Let me play devil's advocate here.

Say Froome was a huge undiscovered talent, with great physiological test results. Sky rub their hands with glee, sign him up.

Then they find his performances patchy, and discover that he has this parasite which attacks his red blood cells. Hurrah! He gets the treatment, and he starts performing better.

So, he has improved his blood with the bilharzia treatment. Before, his blood wasn't working very well, and he wasn't winning. A quick injection or tablet, and now his blood is working well, and he's winning.

Isn't that the definition of doping? Albeit, with a substance which isn't banned? I wonder what effect the treatment would have on someone who doesn't have the parasite?  :?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 23, 2013, 14:34
I observed that Walsh compared bailsford to Henry V which is the most ridiculous comparison one could ever produce and shows that he is absolutely infatuated with Bailsford.

You said the piece was not written with me in mind which makes no sense since whether it is written with me in mind or not, the comment from Walsh was still ridiculous, no matter what.
Dont be so hard on David Walsh, he singlehandedly slayed the Texas Dragon.

Oh wait, he had a little help from Henry Ballestre. Who I have missed in the spotlights, or is he even more modest/humble than Walsh? Is that even possible?

Walsh has returned to his former being: 'a fan with a typewriter'. Re - read his tweets during the Giro, that was fanboyism pur sang.
Is there something wrong with that?
Nope. It's his life, his choices, who am I to judge.

I dont mind him compairing Brailsfor with Henry the Fifth, it is endearing, to say the least.

When you confront David Walsh with his own inconsistencies he leaves the 'conversation', but hey, also his own choice.

But, David Walsh should never have stated that the ones who 'boooooooed' at or doubt Sky or Froome are the ones that loved his antagonist or should I say Golden Goose from Austin Texas, that's where I draw the line. That is disgusting. A very cheap lie. But hey, he got to mention Armstrong again so people will remember how much good he has done.

At least he told the grand public there was nothing inconsistent with Froome's blood pre - Vuelta 2011, nothing wrong with the red blood cells, nothing wrong with the hemaglobine levels.
Let me play devil's advocate here.

Say Froome was a huge undiscovered talent, with great physiological test results. Sky rub their hands with glee, sign him up.

Then they find his performances patchy, and discover that he has this parasite which attacks his red blood cells. Hurrah! He gets the treatment, and he starts performing better.

So, he has improved his blood with the bilharzia treatment. Before, his blood wasn't working very well, and he wasn't winning. A quick injection or tablet, and now his blood is working well, and he's winning.

Isn't that the definition of doping? Albeit, with a substance which isn't banned? I wonder what effect the treatment would have on someone who doesn't have the parasite?  :?
But the team doctor said there was nothing wrong with the blood?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 23, 2013, 14:37
That is on topic, and it is a valuable opinion.

I said exactly the same thing, except that I added that lowered hemoglobin is not consistent with no change in passport. Interesting that you don't accept a factual argument from someone you don't know, but when someone who (someone else says) is a doctor says the same thing, you regard it as a valuable opinion. The technical term for this is argument from authority as opposed to argument from merit, and is exactly what science is not all about.

Quote
I'm still not sure what benefit Froome would gain by falsely claiming to still have Bilharzia.

I'm not sure who you are accusing of saying Froome lied about having the disease. i hope by now you understand that isn't I.

Quote
I've yet to see anything authoritative about its effect on the bio-passport.

The "valuable opinion" says, as I said, and as literature available on the internet says, that hemoglobin is reduced. Do you understand that hemoglobin is one of the most important parameters measured by the biopassport?

Quote
And the bilharzia - it attacks the blood cells, but would the blood tests for the passport show that up? Sky have said it only came to light after detailed blood analysis. So maybe the blood cells weren't working as well as they should (thereby affecting performance), but they were still there in the same number. So any treatment will stop the attack on the cells by killing the parasites, improving effectiveness, improving performance, without increasing the number of cells in the blood.

This is correct, hemoglobin is reduced but red cell number is unaffected. So yes, the disease would affect performance, but as I noted above, it would also affect the passport. If Froome was in the passport program and created a baseline prior to contracting the disease, when he did get the disease, the reduced hemoglobin should have been detected immediately. It would not be consistent with blood doping, so pathology should have been suspected.

If he had the disease before he went on the passport program, the reduced hemoglobin would have been part of his baseline. But when he was treated for the disease, there should have been an increase in hemoglobin. This would not be consistent with the usual blood doping, but could result from some other kind of doping. But if Froome had notified the testers that he was being treated for the disease, the increase would be accounted for.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 23, 2013, 14:46
I guess Dr Ferarri is peed off with Sky and Froome, not to mention Mo Farah,

Quote
.......Just like Froome, Farah, as well as for the outstanding performances, impresses for the ghastly, unhealthy thinness.
Achieved how...? Only with a particularly strict diet?
This is the question those who care about the physical and mental health of the athletes should try to answer to.

Ferarri appears to be out of the loop on the latest 'marginal gains'......
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 14:51
I wonder what effect the treatment would have on someone who doesn't have the parasite?  :?

Of course, now I've thought about it, it would have no effect. The treatment affects the parasite, not the blood itself. But in Froome's case, he is taking something which as a side effect, improves his blood. Sky would have needed to argue that one thoroughly with WADA.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 23, 2013, 14:54
I dont know that they would have had to argue that hard Doolols.

He had an illness, the drugs cured that illness.   That isnt performance enhancing ... its just bringing him back to his natural state.

If you have a virus you will peform below your natural state.  Once that virus is gone, you are back to your normal performace levels. 

Performance enhancing is only if it increased Froome's performance beyond his natural capacity before he had the disease
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 15:01
I said exactly the same thing, except that I added that lowered hemoglobin is not consistent with no change in passport. Interesting that you don't accept a factual argument from someone you don't know, but when someone who (someone else says) is a doctor says the same thing, you regard it as a valuable opinion. The technical term for this is argument from authority as opposed to argument from merit, and is exactly what science is not all about.

It would be an 'argument from authority' but for then fact that I wasn't putting forward an argument.  :D

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 15:18
Not really doping (lets see if that stops certain posters responding to me with some made up stuff about grappe and power outputs) but Walsh says Froome on Alpe d huez punched a guy with a syringe in the face .Is there any video of this?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 23, 2013, 17:02
Bitter Kimmage starts at 10mins:



y no soundcloud embed?

edit: There is, i dont have it fully enabled yet, still tinkering. Dim
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 17:18
Not really doping (lets see if that stops certain posters responding to me with some made up stuff about grappe and power outputs) but Walsh says Froome on Alpe d huez punched a guy with a syringe in the face .Is there any video of this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2Ci4PT4iA&feature=youtube_gdata_player


No syringe, might not be same incident
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 23, 2013, 17:34
Bitter Kimmage starts at 10mins:

https://soundcloud.com/secondcaptains-it-com/second-captains-july-23rd



I dont think Kimmage sounds bitter (same argument Armstrong and his fans made inc McQuaid), he sounds frustrated.

He did point to the holes in Walsh's piece in the Sunday Times.

Interesting that Walsh declined to come on the same program.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 18:34
Yet since then a bunch of people, seemingly without reading his post and addressing any of his points  dismiss it all by saying  that people who think froome made bilharzia up are conspiracy theorists.

Ughh thats not what he said.  Some of you are clearly and consistently putting words into people's mouths liberally without a care in the world as to whether they said it. A fascist mentality of if someone doesn't agree with me its fine to not play by the rules and fabricate evidence against them.

This.  A great deal of effort is being spent by some who will not entertain the possibility that the  bilharzia comments by Sky have little to do with medical reality.  It's very simple.

1. There's no need to travel to cure the disease.  The drug therapies are widely available.  Widely==Worldwide
2. The drugs are not new.  Some patents have expired and as a result, there are generics.
3. The drug therapies are cures.  As in no more parasite.

I will give the reported explanations some room for miscommunication, but what has been reported is nowhere near reality.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 23, 2013, 18:50
This.  A great deal of effort is being spent by some who will not entertain the possibility that the  bilharzia comments by Sky have little to do with medical reality.  It's very simple.

1. There's no need to travel to cure the disease.  The drug therapies are widely available.  Widely==Worldwide
2. The drugs are not new.  Some patents have expired and as a result, there are generics.
3. The drug therapies are cures.  As in no more parasite.

I will give the reported explanations some room for miscommunication, but what has been reported is nowhere near reality.

This is a very good post.  The biggest problem with Froome and Sky is the ( what appears to be deliberate ) confusion and obfuscation around what, if anything, Froome has actually been diagnosed with.  And what the treatments are.

The drugs are widely known and widely available.  Sky has a huge budget and if they intend to create a dynasty they should be taking pains to ensure that they are delivering a crystal clear and transparent message.  They have more than enough money to hire doctors or other medical professionals to explain the condition.  They have more than enough money to engage the services of a Communications firm to ensure the message is crisply and concisely delivered.

However, they do not do these things.  They bumble around like the Keystone Cops giving conflicting, and inaccurate, versions of what the condition is, what the treatments are, etc.

Is it any wonder the doubt and suspicion grows?  Sky are solely responsible for the continuing and growing doubt and they have it, or at least had it, within their own grasp to put all of it to bed.  They have chosen not to do that.

The reasons for the amateurish bumbling are open to all of us to interpret as we best see fit.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 18:57
Ok - this is all getting a bit x-files worthy now.   :fp

seriously - you think they made up Bilharzia ... for what?  to have a story for his improvements ... I guess that is a possibility, but even if that is the case, why would they bother continuing with the treatment argument?

Why wouldnt they just say he had it, he was treated, now he is better?

That he had that disease is plausible to me.  That he had a re-occurance is also plausible.  That he continued to take additional treatments for preventative or cautionary measure is also plausible.  It might be true, it might not be ... but I dont buy some huge conspiracy or cover up.

Reoccurence is possible if he's seeking out the snails.  Treatment of the disease results in a cure.  No more parasite in one or two treatment cycles.
http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001321

Don't take my word for it.  Please! There's plenty of public health data on the disease and therapies.

Grappe - for all we know, his calculations take into account sickness
The reported data time frame doesn't go that far back.  The data starts when he's super-Froome.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 23, 2013, 19:14
Reoccurence is possible if he's seeking out the snails.  Treatment of the disease results in a cure.  No more parasite in one or two treatment cycles.
http://www.plosntds.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pntd.0001321

Don't take my word for it.  Please! There's plenty of public health data on the disease and therapies.
The reported data time frame doesn't go that far back.  The data starts when he's super-Froome.

So why am I seeing reports that in some cases, of a long infection before discovery the eggs will embed themselves in the organs and wont respond to treatment.There seem an awful lot of conflicting views.

But what I still dont get, and i feel rather like im peeing into the wind, is what any of this has to do with anything. What does this have to do with whether or not froome is doping. So far all ive seen is that it may effect his passport but assumedly if he was having treatment this would have been flagged with the panel, so Im still a bit confused where this whole thing is going, and what reference it actually has.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 23, 2013, 19:20
So why am I seeing reports that in some cases, of a long infection before discovery the eggs will embed themselves in the organs and wont respond to treatment.There seem an awful lot of conflicting views.

But what I still dont get, and i feel rather like im peeing into the wind, is what any of this has to do with anything. What does this have to do with whether or not froome is doping. So far all ive seen is that it may effect his passport but assumedly if he was having treatment this would have been flagged with the panel, so Im still a bit confused where this whole thing is going, and what reference it actually has.

Then it all comes back to Sky/Froome. Why mention if it never effected his performance? If it did why not inform the media what exactly is the story and what treatments he has been receiving and if it has been cured.

Simple.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 23, 2013, 19:22
This is a very good post.  The biggest problem with Froome and Sky is the ( what appears to be deliberate ) confusion and obfuscation around what, if anything, Froome has actually been diagnosed with.  And what the treatments are.

The drugs are widely known and widely available.  Sky has a huge budget and if they intend to create a dynasty they should be taking pains to ensure that they are delivering a crystal clear and transparent message.  They have more than enough money to hire doctors or other medical professionals to explain the condition.  They have more than enough money to engage the services of a Communications firm to ensure the message is crisply and concisely delivered.

However, they do not do these things.  They bumble around like the Keystone Cops giving conflicting, and inaccurate, versions of what the condition is, what the treatments are, etc.

Is it any wonder the doubt and suspicion grows?  Sky are solely responsible for the continuing and growing doubt and they have it, or at least had it, within their own grasp to put all of it to bed.  They have chosen not to do that.

The reasons for the amateurish bumbling are open to all of us to interpret as we best see fit.

're the amateurish bumbling as you put it :lol I do wonder if sky expected the media and fans to act in the same way as the media has 're track ?

Sky expected their statements to be taken as word ?

It took them a long time to work out road racing even admitting they made huge mistakes in their 1st campaign.

A classic example or 2 of this is the Manchester open day , and Knaven 1 never happened and one is still dsing .

Funny thing they have succeeded in most parts how many bring up these 2 examples it is all leinders.

DB is playing chess in the media imo, some things are easy to sacrifice other not, the media do not ask the right questions , he knows this and when they do there is never the right follow up questions again imo.

But the issue is dominance and changing goal posts , if that is better than omerta for cycling future is perhaps for another day.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 19:26
So why am I seeing reports that in some cases, of a long infection before discovery the eggs will embed themselves in the organs and wont respond to treatment.There seem an awful lot of conflicting views.
It's worth a look!

But what I still dont get, and i feel rather like im peeing into the wind, is what any of this has to do with anything. What does this have to do with whether or not froome is doping.
Because curing the disease is given as the reason for his transformation to GC destroyer.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 23, 2013, 19:29

Because curing the disease is given as the reason for his transformation to GC destroyer.

The sole reason? or a contributing factor?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 19:31

DB is playing chess in the media imo, some things are easy to sacrifice other not, the media do not ask the right questions , he knows this and when they do there is never the right follow up questions again imo.
Everyone knows on the media side that they can't poke Sky with a stick otherwise they might get their access to UCI events, much less Sky pulled.  Imagine being a cycling sports writer and being left off the list when a notification goes out that Froome is having a press session?  That's what I mean by access.

To be fair, a few walk the line well.  Most immediately fall in line and sell whatever Sky has on offer.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 19:33
The sole reason? or a contributing factor?

I read it as the sole reason. Well... Sky's infamous marginal gains and sleeping on volcanoes is supposedly part of the domination.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 23, 2013, 19:35
Not really doping (lets see if that stops certain posters responding to me with some made up stuff about grappe and power outputs) but Walsh says Froome on Alpe d huez punched a guy with a syringe in the face .Is there any video of this?

I had to read that a few times.  I believe he was saying the team doctor was riding in a car and the team doctor saw the syringe dude.  I could be wrong though.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Icebreaker on July 23, 2013, 19:35
I don't think curing the condition ( I don't think of it as a disease, it is an infection basically) has anything to do with the Doping question.

I think this is the oldest trick in the book with media.  Keep putting forth a story until it becomes the accepted truth.  The post above is correct, DB is playing chess with the media.

Just keep spewing the same line, over and over, until the other versions of the truth fall away.

Treating an infection and calling it a disease and making the story around that so much more complicated that it likely was is, in my mind, a classic case of "bait and switch".
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 19:44
Everyone knows on the media side that they can't poke Sky with a stick otherwise they might get their access to UCI events, much less Sky pulled.  Imagine being a cycling sports writer and being left off the list when a notification goes out that Froome is having a press session?  That's what I mean by access.

To be fair, a few walk the line well.  Most immediately fall in line and sell whatever Sky has on offer.

And yet during the TdF Froome was bombarded with doping questions every day in yellow, I believe, including the rest day. News International's arms are long but are they that long?

I have some sympathy with Brailsfords words when he said that whatever they do its never enough....somebody will always ask for more. He was proved correct by the reaction to the release of Froome's data.

Now I do think that Sky could release the data from prior to the 11 vuelta....but we would see the same reaction I suspect. I'm hoping that Cookson's suggestion of all teams being compelled to release all data comes to pass. If teams are cheating I hope for them to be caught and/or dissauded, including Sky.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 23, 2013, 20:13
So why am I seeing reports that in some cases, of a long infection before discovery the eggs will embed themselves in the organs and wont respond to treatment.There seem an awful lot of conflicting views.


 What views does that conflict with?  Both are true.

The decoded science article zam posted says both those things. Do you think the article contradicts itself?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 23, 2013, 20:29
Keep putting forth a story until it becomes the accepted truth.  The post above is correct, DB is playing chess with the media. Just keep spewing the same line, over and over, until the other versions of the truth fall away.

And how many times has Brailsford talked about this? Froome? How many times have they told us that this is the reason for his rapid rise to prominence?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 20:54
I don't think that is the accusation, doolools

The accusation is that Sky are using Froomes bilharzia as a smokescreen for his rapid progress.

The thing is for that to be true, it is a lucky coincidence for them that Froome actually had Bilharzia
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Ghost on July 23, 2013, 21:15
I don't think that is the accusation, doolools

The accusation is that Sky are using Froomes bilharzia as a smokescreen for his rapid progress.

The thing is for that to be true, it is a lucky coincidence for them that Froome actually had Bilharzia


Where's the proof?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 23, 2013, 21:16
Of course, now I've thought about it, it would have no effect. The treatment affects the parasite, not the blood itself. But in Froome's case, he is taking something which as a side effect, improves his blood. Sky would have needed to argue that one thoroughly with WADA.
But, but, but:
Quote
On the second rest day at the Giro d'Italia, I meet Richard Freeman, the team doctor, at a cafe in Bardonecchia. Freeman's background is football, working for Bolton in the Premier League before accepting an offer from the British track cycling team and Team Sky. We have a coffee, go for a walk, talk for two hours and along the way he describes his reaction to Froome's breakthrough performance at the 2011 Vuelta a Espana.
 
He knew Froome as a rider with great talent but whose good days were followed by bad ones. Then, at that Vuelta, three weeks, not one bad day and second place overall.
 
At first Freeman wasn't convinced.
 
"I was confused because Chris hadn't performed with this consistency for the team and I wondered how he'd done it. Before I could be satisfied, I spent two weeks re-examining all of his blood samples from his two seasons in our team and looked at all the information in his biological passport.
 
"What I wanted was to compare blood results from the Vuelta with the blood tests he'd done previously to see if there were changes. There weren't. His blood values remained the same and whatever the reasons for him riding consistently in that Vuelta, in my opinion it wasn't down to him doing things he shouldn't have done." Freeman's admission of initial concern was reassuring.
 
Why would Sky have to go to WADA and explain blood values while they have not changed according to the Team Sky Doctor?
Not really doping (lets see if that stops certain posters responding to me with some made up stuff about grappe and power outputs) but Walsh says Froome on Alpe d huez punched a guy with a syringe in the face .Is there any video of this?
Maybe this one is again on the loose:
(http://images.theage.com.au/2011/05/23/2380762/art-svS_CONTADOR-420x0.jpg)

Pretty funny imho.


Title: Agenda Spotting
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 21:21
Anyone like to comment on the 'Froome the African' angle being sold by e.g. Walsh? Harmonises nicely with other results for African teams/riders this year and also McQuaid's power base.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 23, 2013, 21:29
I remember days destroying White Lion on mountains. But I was doped :D
Title: BTW
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 21:30
Anyone got a link for the first ever mention of CF having bilharzia?
Title: Re: Agenda Spotting
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 21:37
Anyone like to comment on the 'Froome the African' angle being sold by e.g. Walsh? Harmonises nicely with other results for African teams/riders this year and also McQuaid's power base.

Didn't read what he said about that, so no idea. What do you mean by McQuaid's power base? A lot of teams always used to visit SA for training over our summers, specifically in the surrounds of where I live in the Winelands.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 21:48
Didn't read what he said about that, so no idea. What do you mean by McQuaid's power base? A lot of teams always used to visit SA for training over our summers, specifically in the surrounds of where I live in the Winelands.
Actually I may be talking rubbish. I thought African federations were more overrepresented than they are in the presidential voting process. I am now endeavouring to get my facts straight.

Walsh refers to him as "first African to win the Tour" as have others, although he could also be considered British.

edit: Maybe I'm not totally wrong, as McQuaid does seem to have backing on that continent.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/confederacy-of-dunces-a-look-into-the-uci-presidential-election (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/confederacy-of-dunces-a-look-into-the-uci-presidential-election)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 22:06
Actually I may be talking rubbish. I thought African federations were more overrepresented than they are in the presidential voting process. I am now endeavouring to get my facts straight.

Walsh refers to him as "first African to win the Tour" as have others, although he could also be considered British.

edit: Maybe I'm not totally wrong, as McQuaid does seem to have backing on that continent.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/confederacy-of-dunces-a-look-into-the-uci-presidential-election (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/confederacy-of-dunces-a-look-into-the-uci-presidential-election)

Thanks, I haven't the foggiest re the overrepresentation. Surely it's weird for Walsh to call him that if he competes as a Brit? (Does he have dual citizenship?) Could Walsh be trying to be controversial?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 22:11
Well, it might be a genuflexion towards his African roots.  Whilst he may be British passport holder, I'll bet that he identifies more with Africa than Great Britain.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 22:17
Well, it might be a genuflexion towards his African roots.  Whilst he may be British passport holder, I'll bet that he identifies more with Africa than Great Britain.

I get that part. Hmm, I guess I mean the way people tend to crack remarks about the amount of SA born cricket players in England, are people trying to be snarcky, you think, or just hamming up that his from Africa to add some "romance" (at a loss for a better word) to Froome's image??
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 22:21
On one level IMO it is akin to LA's "cancer shield": a "poor Africa" shield. Selling CF's win as progress in African development although he may not be the most disadvantaged African (I don't know his background). I was just wondering if there was an indication that some people had an interest in helping African cycling along in more 'hands on' ways.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 22:25
I get that part. Hmm, I guess I mean the way people tend to crack remarks about the amount of SA born cricket players in England, are people trying to be snarcky, you think, or just hamming up that his from Africa to add some "romance" (at a loss for a better word) to Froome's image??

Well, I don't suppose many British people regard him as properly British. Certainly, the trumpeting of his win as being a 'British' win is a little muted here in the UK. Not in an unkind way, I might add.

As for Walsh's motivation, who knows. Maybe he just wanted to remind us of the forgotten continent.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 22:29
On one level IMO it is akin to LA's "cancer shield": a "poor Africa" shield. Selling CF's win as progress in African development although he may not be the most disadvantaged African (I don't know his background). I was just wondering if there was an indication that some people had an interest in helping African cycling along in more 'hands on' ways.

Oh, ok I see what you are alluding to. I quickly scanned that link you posted, I guess having that % of representatives for Africa is high in relation to the amount of riders/UCI points they have? Is that why they could be described as overrepresented? Spotted this
 
Quote
(* Two national federations are currently listed as suspended: Comores and Niger, both from the African confederation.)

at the bottom of the page, what on earth for? Google didn't really yield anything.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Joachim on July 23, 2013, 22:32
On one level IMO it is akin to LA's "cancer shield": a "poor Africa" shield. Selling CF's win as progress in African development although he may not be the most disadvantaged African (I don't know his background). I was just wondering if there was an indication that some people had an interest in helping African cycling along in more 'hands on' ways.

Well that presupposes that he needs a shield. I'm not sure who is selling that line, whenever he is mentioned here it is as a Kenyan born Briton.

I did read an article that tried to push the poor white kid riding with the blacks line, but then I read another that pushed the white kid breaking barriers by riding with blacks line.

You can't blame Froome for thst . Journalists are reknowned for twisting a facts into the story they want to write.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 23, 2013, 22:35
Well, I don't suppose many British people regard him as properly British. Certainly, the trumpeting of his win as being a 'British' win is a little muted here in the UK. Not in an unkind way, I might add.

As for Walsh's motivation, who knows. Maybe he just wanted to remind us of the forgotten continent.

Ok cool. I would probably be inclined to think it is marketing stuff. Without being overly soppy about it, gotta say stuff like the Qhubeka initiative really does make a difference to people here - it's hard for a lot of people to imagine how poor a lot of South Africans truly are, that a simple bicycle donation can make a difference. Always nice to see that some of the money in cycling is going to a good cause.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 22:39
Well that presupposes that he needs a shield. I'm not sure who is selling that line, whenever he is mentioned here it is as a Kenyan born Briton.

I did read an article that tried to push the poor white kid riding with the blacks line, but then I read another that pushed the white kid breaking barriers by riding with blacks line.

You can't blame Froome for thst . Journalists are reknowned for twisting a facts into the story they want to write.

True, journalists will seek an angle on a story, it doesn't need to be imposed from further up.
Title: Re: BTW
Post by: DinZ on July 23, 2013, 22:41
Anyone got a link for the first ever mention of CF having bilharzia?

The first mention of bilharzia i found was in an interview after first time trial in vuelta. Froome says he was not certain of his form coming in as he had been sick with bilharzia earlier in year but oped it was all gone.  I think it was in velonews but not certain.

Found mentions off illness in pre vuelta interviews but did not mention bilharzia.  Also saw a tweet from froome saying fully cured and healthy in july which matches the time lines given
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 23:21
The first mention of bilharzia i found was in an interview after first time trial in vuelta. Froome says he was not certain of his form coming in as he had been sick with bilharzia earlier in year but oped it was all gone.  I think it was in velonews but not certain.

Found mentions off illness in pre vuelta interviews but did not mention bilharzia.  Also saw a tweet from froome saying fully cured and healthy in july which matches the time lines given
Thanks, got a mention of "blood poisoning" in a Telegraph interview on TT day, still looking.

Also interesting would be a client list for his agent, but the agent may just be the cycling agent, allowing no conclusions to be drawn.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 23, 2013, 23:53
Thanks, got a mention of "blood poisoning" in a Telegraph interview on TT day, still looking.

Also interesting would be a client list for his agent, but the agent may just be the cycling agent, allowing no conclusions to be drawn.

yeah it is quite hard to find, tried searching by date but then you get all sorts of matches that come up because it has a link to a new story at the bottom. digging through my web history now but spent about an hour looking at froome and bilharzia sites so history is rather full.

the pre vuelta mentions of illness were on sky site and his twitter but neither mention bilharzia just illness


found it. this was first mention i could find, does not mean there are not earllier ones, i just got fed up searching
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9586/Chris-Froome-The-Vuelta-is-a-big-milestone-in-my-career.aspx


it was hidden away among all the articles on chris froomes development and how bilharzia sometimes needs more than one treatment. so it is possible that they have all been planted by members of the alien invasion
Title: While Googling...
Post by: taiwan on July 23, 2013, 23:59
Just found this Vuelta power file btw has this been linked already?

http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/OGWG6HAU5XQLNINSED3OOFS55Q (http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/OGWG6HAU5XQLNINSED3OOFS55Q)

BTW - dropoff in peak power between 20 and 60min is 30W contradicting Grappe I believe.

Here's a June 2011 interview in which he says he's been sick - chest infection.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8859/Chris-Froome-Interview-Ive-been-able-to-climb-in-the-front-group-quite-often-this-season.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8859/Chris-Froome-Interview-Ive-been-able-to-climb-in-the-front-group-quite-often-this-season.aspx)
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 24, 2013, 00:02
had seen those before, in fact rememebr reading them during the race. Miss Froome to be linked it a few days ago as well on twitter
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 24, 2013, 00:51
I read it as the sole reason. Well... Sky's infamous marginal gains and sleeping on volcanoes is supposedly part of the domination.

See ive seen a number of things with Froome, commitment, and also experience etc, a disciplined training regime, and to an extent self beleif. Add into that "marginal gains", treatment, age, (the peloton becoming cleaner ;)), and there are a whole bunch of factors (claimed) to be the reason.

just wondering where it fits in in all this.

fwiw, Im all into investigating wether Froome is doping, Im just finding the whole BhIlzaria thing a bit of a diversion, white elephant, not totally relevant.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 24, 2013, 01:11
What do ppl know about Alex Carera? Plenty dodgy clients by the looks. Just a by-product of being a top cycling agent?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 24, 2013, 03:50
On one level IMO it is akin to LA's "cancer shield": a "poor Africa" shield. Selling CF's win as progress in African development although he may not be the most disadvantaged African (I don't know his background). I was just wondering if there was an indication that some people had an interest in helping African cycling along in more 'hands on' ways.
IMHO, they reworked the story a bit for Froome.

The most important thing to recall is the UCI's efforts over the last 5-8 years to "develop" cycling in Africa.   They discovered a grand tour champion out of nowhere given Froome's lack of  results.  http://www.wccafrica.com/about/

Then there's the now-dead "B" world championships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_B_World_Championships  Chris got second in the TT!  Some grand tour killer.  ;)

Chris visited the UCI's world cycling centre for testing and coaching.  That data would be interesting.
Here's outgoing SportAccord leader Hein Verbruggen giving the African World Cycling Center more money through his organization, SportAccord: http://www.wccafrica.com/press-release-world-cycling-centres-african-project-receives-major-sportaccord-award/  Nice summary of the UCI's efforts.

Now, if Froome starts an "awareness" charity, then he's in full cancer-shield mode.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 24, 2013, 04:56
See ive seen a number of things with Froome, commitment, and also experience etc, a disciplined training regime, and to an extent self beleif. Add into that "marginal gains", treatment, age, (the peloton becoming cleaner ;)), and there are a whole bunch of factors (claimed) to be the reason.

I'd have much less suspicion if a couple of things were true:
-Lower ranked results to validate the ascendency to GC destroyer.  (ex. Uran, Quintana, even Porte!  and Kennaugh)
-If the parasite story was told in a believable manner. 
-If the *whole* Sky GC squad power output was quite a bit lower.  Maybe Talansky range, and that's probably clean-ish.
-If there was more racing of the Sky GT team.  They hide out when not destroying fields.  Classic doper strategy.  Why don't the one-day squad get blessed with the GT team power?
-If the UCI was a less hands-on federation when it came to rider positives.  We know they hide positives.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 24, 2013, 07:21
See ive seen a number of things with Froome, commitment, and also experience etc, a disciplined training regime, and to an extent self beleif. Add into that "marginal gains", treatment, age, (the peloton becoming cleaner ;)), and there are a whole bunch of factors (claimed) to be the reason.

just wondering where it fits in in all this.

fwiw, Im all into investigating wether Froome is doping, Im just finding the whole BhIlzaria thing a bit of a diversion, white elephant, not totally relevant.

depemds on what side of the issue you are

Sky gave it as a reason for the lack of results of a future world beater , once the parasite was discovered  he was treated and we get to the Chris Froome GT champion.

So me of the arguments around that are,

 - The health issue was made up as a cover story , basically he is a super responder and is on a program which starts July 2011 at a time at which he is about to be dropped by Sky and needs a new contract

 - The miss communication and on going treatments - having had something which attacks red blood cells and therefore oxygen carrying capacity , once things were under control and Froome returns to health , he becomes the GT monster we see in 2011 - For this to be true there must have been changes in his blood make up - as pointed out by MI and others

so while the team Dr found nothing which showed irregularities in a peds sense , he should have found them in a BhIlzaria negative sense

and then there is the discussion re on going treatment and if the eggs die or not and what the treatment is and what it actually does to the body - which I discussed with Michelle many pages ago .

So while one is a bit out there , ie the made up BhIlzaria , the other which makes some sense until Walsh´s and the Dr go for their walk and coffee .

While there were jokes above about a BhIlzaria foundation and pointed out by Dinz , Kabs and BYOP that would be a great thing for mind   
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 08:06
This.  A great deal of effort is being spent by some who will not entertain the possibility that the  bilharzia comments by Sky have little to do with medical reality.  It's very simple.

1. There's no need to travel to cure the disease.  The drug therapies are widely available.  Widely==Worldwide
2. The drugs are not new.  Some patents have expired and as a result, there are generics.
3. The drug therapies are cures.  As in no more parasite.

I will give the reported explanations some room for miscommunication, but what has been reported is nowhere near reality.
Unfortunately point 3 is simply not true. Praziquantel doesn't kill eggs, it doesn't even kill immature parasites. There is nothing unbelievable about having the treatment and then finding that it hasn't got rid of all parasites/eggs. Charity treatment for say children in high risk areas 'cure' the problem with an annual dose. In which case it doesn't matter whether the parasite is a recent immigrant or was born there.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 24, 2013, 09:06
It has been covered several times that the cure is not a cure all and there are exceptions. there are plenty of studies to show it.

same way as people keep claiming that Bilharzia is the only reason he ever improved despite numerous listings posted previously to show it is not, but was just a reason why his improvement stalled early in 2011.

there is no point arguing as all teams use exactly the same methods, all coaches are the same, all athletes respond in the same way  to different structures and training methods, no one has ever developed a mechanism for improving training since the sport was invented and anyone who claims they can make a difference has just found a new type of doping.

anyone who wanted to can read interviews about his history and see it is not nearly as magical as people seem to think, same way you can find plenty of posts on the web about multiple treatments for Bilharzia and its cure rates and way in which patients respond.

but what do i know i am just a stupid fascist

not sure anyone called you a fascist , most appreciate the information you bring to the discussion

re the bolded part I do believe that Sky may have different methods , a lot of it seems to be around work at just below threshold and holding that for longer periods of time - but again we get confusion of statements . and as I said above if this is better than silence/omerta who knows

Froome riders and 10 000 rpm ( I have now idea what the number was ) to attack on Ventoux - Kerrision says the riders practice this all the time spinning on a low gear as fast as they can - ok cool , then in an interview Froome says he has never practiced high cadence attacking in training.

I have no idea if other practice high cadence 10 000 rpm attacks or not , I have never seen it in such away before

but there is confusion of what Sky are telling people and many of the arguments , were used by Dopers of the past , so people are wary about believe them again for the 2nd or 3rd time

which is a massive issue as well .

There are so many issues and because Sky the  team have been the ones saying we are clean , we will show cycling the way - maybe they need for the greater good of cycling be transparent as well , and take the fact that they might loose the upper hand in training techniques and thus loose races to truly show the world that they are clean.

Now of course the argument will be why should they they became a cycling team to win races , yeep but they also according the their media show the world you can win clean.

Should this just be Sky being open of course not , might it take Garmin and Sky to show the way I would like to think so.

But there needs to be a real openness and not just stories that do not add up or change, Brailsford asked what can we do to show we are clean , for me would be be open.

Sure Walsh is with the team but what info do we have , what training are they doing differently that other teams ?, what is new ?, what it the secret ?

To make a real change maybe they need to make a massive sacrifice is it right they get more stress than other teams probably not

ie

in one of the dodgiest sporting events in the world a little know Australian designed a keel which would change sailing forever , they could have kept the design a secret maybe - nope won the Americas Cup and showed the world

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmEJICr1k25IkIClNezo6CQO4kLk86GXIXHYl7VaWMgOtvpobk)     
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 24, 2013, 09:28
Pinarello doping? Would explain Movistar too.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 24, 2013, 09:38
Quote
It has been covered several times that the cure is not a cure all and there are exceptions. there are plenty of studies to show it.

100% correct. Getting rid of a parasitic infection is notoriously difficult, I started doing an anti-parasite cleanse last year, using a tea prepared from very strong herbs, and the effect on my body has been crazy: weight loss, sugar cravings way down, whites of my eyes gone insanely white, skin tone greatly improved, energy levels way up, hair healthy and growing very fast, nails too. A lot of my research into parasites indicates that it can take multiple cleanses to clear the infection, and that often you can re-infect yourself if even a single egg stays behind (same idea as when you de-flea a cat/dog, if you don't get ALL the life stages of the parasite, they will simply re-infect the host). Here it is indicated that
Quote
Treatment is aimed at reducing the risk of damage to body organs and usually have to be repeated
and that it
Quote
causes chronic ill health
http://www.health24.com/Medical/Diseases/Bilharzia-20120721. Note that
Quote
A chronic condition is a human health condition or disease that is persistent or otherwise long-lasting in its effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_illness.

As I mentioned before, it can be rather tricky to kill all the life stages of a parasite, here it seems the eggs do the damage, and of course that not all individuals react or respond in the same manner
Quote
The adult and larval worms are comparatively harmless to their human host, but the eggs can cause severe disease. The severity of the tissue damage caused by the eggs is positively correlated both to the number of worms that a person accumulates, and to the intensity of the human immune response to the eggs: too strong an inflammatory response ultimately leads to more tissue damage, too little to tissue necrosis by egg products. Moreover, a large proportion of the eggs do not escape from the host. Instead, in S. mansoni and S. japonicum infections, they are carried in the blood circulation to lodge in the liver. As a result, fibrous layers of cells from the immune system (known as granulomas) form around the eggs – and it is this response rather than the worms themselves that causes the life-threatening syndrome. S. haematobium eggs are equally dangerous, causing fibrosis – the formation of excess fibrous connective tissue – in the bladder wall
http://www.scienceinschool.org/print/787 and I was advised to do a liver cleanse too. How your liver is functioning has a great effect on the body
Quote
The Liver is our largest metabolic organ, and has to process everything we put into the body, including drugs, medications, food additives, pollution in the water and air. It also has to process all the food we eat, breaking down fats and producing many enzymes...Congestion of the Liver can produce physical and emotional symptoms.
http://www.lifecircles-inc.com/wellnessarticles/livercleanse.html and
Quote
The Liver Stores Glycogen

The liver also helps the body use carbohydrates (carbs), another important component in food. Carbohydrates are found in lots of foods, such as bread, fruit, and milk. The body breaks down most carbs into a type of sugar called glucose, which is the main source of fuel for our cells. Glucose stored in the liver is called glycogen. Glycogen is like your backup fuel. When the body needs a quick energy boost or when a person's blood glucose level drops the liver breaks down glycogen and releases glucose into the bloodstream.
http://kidshealth.org/kid/htbw/liver.html#

This next site is quite cool, it's in dialogue form and really explains how the parasite works, and how difficult it is to eradicate them, but is not complicated to follow
Quote
So these parasites are obviously pretty resourceful at getting around what the immune system has to throw at them. Yeah, they're very, very good at getting around what the immune system has to throw at them and it’s done using a special antibody called IgE which recognizes special surface structures on the parasite.  But obviously, if it can't see these structures, if the IgE can't bind to those structures, then the cells can’t release the chemicals and they can't destroy the parasites.  And so, the parasites have developed lots of very clever ways of avoiding that process.  So, the parasite I work on  is Schistosoma mansoni which causes the Schistosomiasis.  It’s a huge problem. Bilharzia is the other name. Yes and that actually has the adult worms which live in the bloodstream so they're exposed to the immune system all the time.  They see the immune system all the time.

They actually have a special outside layer called the tegument which wraps around them and actually hides the majority of the things that IgE can react against in the worms.  Then it takes in bits of your own blood and coats itself in your blood. Your body’s immune system is also very good at not destroying yourself, and you tolerise to your own antigens when you're very, very small and so, the worms coat themselves in this to protect them.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/2014/ Worth a read. Also please note
Quote
Only Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma haematobium are found in Southern Africa
http://www.health24.com/Medical/Diseases/Bilharzia-20120721

*Edit:    Quoted more detail on how the virus coats itself in the host's blood to avoid detection - scary sh*t and worth a read in case you hadn't clicked the link through - sounds tenacious.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: just some guy on July 24, 2013, 09:52
doping in cycling – speak now, or forever shut the f*ck up (http://crankpunk.com/2013/07/24/doping-in-cycling-speak-now-or-forever-shut-the-fck-up/)

crankpunk with some thoughts mainly Froome based
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 24, 2013, 10:10
Unfortunately point 3 is simply not true. Praziquantel doesn't kill eggs, it doesn't even kill immature parasites. There is nothing unbelievable about having the treatment and then finding that it hasn't got rid of all parasites/eggs. Charity treatment for say children in high risk areas 'cure' the problem with an annual dose. In which case it doesn't matter whether the parasite is a recent immigrant or was born there.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Yeah, I wouldn't buy for a split second that they can be cured by that.
Quote
Various nutrient deficiencies can also be caused by parasitic worm infections as the parasites absorb vital vitamins and nutrients that would normally be absorbed by the host body.

The actions of the worms can also interfere with normal digestive processes. For example, worms release protease inhibitors as a defence against the body’s protein digesting enzymes and these may impair the breakdown of other proteins intended for use by the body.

In addition, direct damage to the intestinal mucosa can cause impaired nutrient uptake, and the complex chemical imbalances caused by the body’s reaction to the worms can also affect nutrient absorption. For example, roundworm (Ascaris) infections have been linked to temporarily induced lactose intolerance and to the malabsorption of vitamin A, protein and fat.

Parasitic worms also release chemicals which suppress the host's immune system in order to continue existing within the host. This, in combination with the long-term immune response triggered by worm infection may drain the body’s ability to fight other diseases, making affected individuals more prone to viral, bacterial and fungal infections. The worms also excrete toxic waste products that continuously poison the host's body taxing detoxification processes. Worms and their larvae can also perforate organs and tissues as they migrate through the body causing inflammation, acute symptoms and interfering with their functions. Finally, parasitic clumps are often mistaken for cancerous tumours with all that implies
http://www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com/articles/Parasitic-Worms.html
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 10:20
doping in cycling – speak now, or forever shut the f*ck up (http://crankpunk.com/2013/07/24/doping-in-cycling-speak-now-or-forever-shut-the-fck-up/)

crankpunk with some thoughts mainly Froome based
I'm getting a little wearied by the argument, "The Armstrong was dirty  and he was allowed to get away with it, we shouldn't make the same mistake wih Froome."

Questioning is good, scepticism is fine. But it should all be on the basis that there is as yet no evidence against him.

Whereas there was masses of evidence against Armstrong, it's just that due to a combination of: threats, legal action, bullying, spin, corruption and self-interest, that evidence was surpressed. And that is the sort of operation you need to mount in order to surpress a truth of this magnitude. Having crap PR is oddly reassuring.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 24, 2013, 10:27
I'd go home and check my poo if I were you guys, just btw :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 24, 2013, 11:05
Unfortunately point 3 is simply not true. Praziquantel doesn't kill eggs, it doesn't even kill immature parasites. There is nothing unbelievable about having the treatment and then finding that it hasn't got rid of all parasites/eggs. Charity treatment for say children in high risk areas 'cure' the problem with an annual dose. In which case it doesn't matter whether the parasite is a recent immigrant or was born there.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The charity you looked at was the carter foundation right? From what others have said giving people in high risk areas biltricide annualy is done because it is easier than testing the entire population and only then deciding who to give the biltricide to which will be half the population anyway. It is not because the eggs hatch inside the body. Someone on cn suggested that froome and sky staff may have made the same mistake from that page because it was linked through Wikipedia. And that is not a conspiracy theory because they have clearly got their misinformation from somewhere.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 24, 2013, 11:16
I'm getting a little wearied by the argument, "The Armstrong was dirty  and he was allowed to get away with it, we shouldn't make the same mistake wih Froome."

Questioning is good, scepticism is fine. But it should all be on the basis that there is as yet no evidence against him.

Whereas there was masses of evidence against Armstrong, it's just that due to a combination of: threats, legal action, bullying, spin, corruption and self-interest, that evidence was surpressed. And that is the sort of operation you need to mount in order to surpress a truth of this magnitude. Having crap PR is oddly reassuring.

The problem is Cap'n that the actual evidence against Armstrong didnt surface until much later.  The 99 Tour samples werent made public till 2005.  The 'suspcious samples' from TdS in 2001 and Dauphine in 2002 werent made public until 2010, the financial donations to the UCI only started coming out with a lot of the other evidence in the SCA case in 2006.  Then there was Floyd in 2010 ...  MOST of this actual evidence ... or the corroboration of dodgy stuff ... came out later.    Until then, we only had the  LA Confidential stuff - which was passed off as bitter, uncorroborated slag-fest  (sound familiar).

I do feel for Chris Froome.  The cycling fans seem to have learnt a few lessons from the past, and now there basically isnt anything he can say or do that will prove he is clean.   That must be hard for him ...

But, as a cycling fan who has been deceived so many times, I cant bring myself to believe.

But he shouldn't be angry at me for that.  Or at the other fans who harass him. Or even  at the journo's who hound him.  The ones he should be angry at are the ones who have caused this.  The Lance Armstrongs, the Contadors and Valverde's, the DiLuca's and Santambrogio's, the Sayers and Frank Schlecks ... the Festina's, the Astana's, the USPS's ...    the ones that have caused the problem of lack of faith in todays riders.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 24, 2013, 13:20
But he shouldn't be angry at me for that.  Or at the other fans who harass him. Or even  at the journo's who hound him.

I don't think he is angry. Exasperated, maybe. He's in a crap position, if he is clean.

I think most of the PR / interviews not lining up is just people talking and getting stories slightly wrong. I don't see a conspiracy to mislead - they're not that good at it. If Froome is on something - and there's some evidence to suggest that is so given his performances, especially rising towards the end of a 3-week GT - my betting is that it's something new and as yet unbanned (although WADA do have a particularly wide "and products like it" catch-all). So they can say that they're not doing anything illegal, and tell the truth.

There might be some disinformation going on about how he gets these performances. Whatever it is, whether it be a product or a method, in training or during the race, they sure as hell aren't going to tell the world about it, and lose their competitive edge. Until they have the Next Big Thing lined up and ready to go.

The hill climb cadence thing was just so weird. Like some little kid who hasn't worked out the gears yet. But it's effective is breaking the link (sometimes) between a rider and his group, and that might be enough, psychologically, to stop the chasing rider from coming back at him. Mind you, it didn't work with Quintana the 2nd time. He just rode tempo back up to him, like Porte did on many occasions  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 13:20
The charity you looked at was the carter foundation right? From what others have said giving people in high risk areas biltricide annualy is done because it is easier than testing the entire population and only then deciding who to give the biltricide to which will be half the population anyway. It is not because the eggs hatch inside the body. Someone on cn suggested that froome and sky staff may have made the same mistake from that page because it was linked through Wikipedia. And that is not a conspiracy theory because they have clearly got their misinformation from somewhere.
What misinformation?

I was not making a point about the rationale behind treating annually, but the outcome.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 24, 2013, 13:25
What misinformation?

I was not making a point about the rationale behind treating annually, but the outcome.

The outcome? The outcome is that those who have the parasite will in almost all cases have it killed off after taking the biltricide.

I dont see what the follow through to that is though.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 24, 2013, 13:31
The outcome? The outcome is that those who have the parasite will in almost all cases have it killed off after taking the biltricide.

Link please?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 16:14
The outcome? The outcome is that those who have the parasite will in almost all cases have it killed off after taking the biltricide.

I dont see what the follow through to that is though.
Taking the biltricide how many times?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 24, 2013, 16:50
Link please?

This one from earlier in the discussion for example

http://www.decodedscience.com/chris-froomes-parasite-what-is-bilharzia-anyway/33544 (http://www.decodedscience.com/chris-froomes-parasite-what-is-bilharzia-anyway/33544)

Taking the biltricide how many times?
According to this
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=69062df4-b831-4496-b5f3-1c575b1916b8#nlm34068-7

Quote
DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION
The dosage recommended for the treatment of schistosomiasis is: 20 mg/kg bodyweight three times a day as a one day treatment, at intervals of not less than 4 hours and not more than 6 hours.

The German scientist search quoted said that occasionally more is needed but he never heard it go longer than 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 16:54
This one from earlier in the discussion for example
According to this
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=69062df4-b831-4496-b5f3-1c575b1916b8#nlm34068-7

The German scientist search quoted said that occasionally more is needed but he never heard it go longer than 2 weeks.
Thanks but I was trying to clarify the number of treatments, not the number  of doses per treatment.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 24, 2013, 16:56
This one from earlier in the discussion for example
According to this
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=69062df4-b831-4496-b5f3-1c575b1916b8#nlm34068-7

The German scientist search quoted said that occasionally more is needed but he never heard it go longer than 2 weeks.

Thanks.


Ok, let me see if I can find a local SA doc who potentially specialises in this, and hear what they have to say. An old friend of mine ended up in hospital because of it, haven't seen her in years though. Will also see if I can find sites with forums for people who have struggled with this, and see what they say about it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 24, 2013, 17:25
Thanks but I was trying to clarify the number of treatments, not the number  of doses per treatment.


Both the links i posted specified  one day treatment

Quote
The dosage recommended for the treatment of schistosomiasis is: 20 mg/kg bodyweight three times a day as a one day treatment,


Quote
Doctors use the drug praziquantel to treat schistosomiasis, typically in two or three doses for just one day.

A poster on some cycling forum (not cn, some other one) who said his wife was senior researcher for tropical diseases at some university said that the treatment will last longer in those cases that there is a heavy worm burden.  I think Froome said in 1 of his interviews that he takes it for 3 days.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 24, 2013, 21:04
Excuse me, I never claimed to be a doctor and have relied on quotes from actual scientists for every point I have made and backed it up with sources and links.

And Merckx index who has provided by far the most compelling case for our side, to which we have only added is a scientist. And the doctor Search quoted 3 pages back is an actual doctor for tropical diseases. 

Do you have any actual points you want to add? Any challenges or observations? You have any sources and links to back that up?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 24, 2013, 21:09
Thanks but I was trying to clarify the number of treatments, not the number  of doses per treatment.

Here's the long answer.

After initial diagnosis, which proves difficult unless the parasite is mature, one treatment is given. 
The patient is then retested some weeks later for existence of the parasite again.

http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/schistosomiasis/health_professionals/

Everything I've read so far suggests the parasite in rare cases can be found in unusual places and damages all kinds of organs if left untreated.  I don't think that's the case with Froome though.

I'm perfectly happy to back off the idea that the treatment is a cure.  It seems there is a population where it is not a cure.  Combine that with a writer and the patient talking about it and there's some room for error.  It's better to get to some facts so many can have confidence in deciding for themselves.

My revised summary:
The the patient doesn't need to travel anywhere to seek therapy.
In most cases, the cure is complete.  It's possible that it wasn't cured after initial treatment.  Every body is different, so I'll go with the story that it may not have been cured after initial diagnosis.
Retest is the safest way to track the parasite.  That is only stool/urine samples though. 
Testing negative for parasite artifacts for 6 months, then a positive means seeking out the infection, not some kind of "slumbering parasite."
 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Capt_Cavman on July 24, 2013, 21:18
I think I agree, I just don't understand your last sentence. Could you elaborate please?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Tuart on July 24, 2013, 21:20
I have no previous knowledge of Bizzy nor pretend to have any background medical knowledge to base an opinion on the subject.

It's amusing is all. We've had the pseudo-science whilst the tour is on, now we have the pseudo-medicine.

Everyone's an expert with google at their fingertips.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 24, 2013, 21:32
OK, that's quite enough of that. :niceday Bilharzia is a valid topic here given the Froome context and the more that can be understood about it, the better, provided that nobody attempts to claim that information they gathered from the Internet is cast-iron proof of any particular outcome.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 25, 2013, 00:16
The problem with having people who are not experts having this discussion is a total lack of balance. You find an article by a german guy that says it never goes on for more than two weeks. There are also loads of articles that say it can and people can need repeat treatments after a year. that the disease can present for long periods making diagnosis of re infection rates hard. Every time people say this you seem to ignore it and go out and find another article that backs up your version and yet seem to skip over all the articles that disagree with you. Have yet to see you respond to points like

a) why would he lie, what does he benefit from lying, what is your hypothesis?
b) why are their numerous articles that suggest that follow ups be carried out at 6 months and a year. this is mentioned a lot so if there is never ever any need to go beyond 2 weeks why would this be required
c) why do people discuss how hard it is to judge reinfection rates and the success rates of medication because the disease can represent afterwards even though subjects have improved
d) why are some patients given repeat doses a year later?
e) what about the 10% (roughly 50 million people at current infection rates) that the drug does not work for

this information is all out there. in your searches you seemed to have missed them. maybe you should try reading more on the subject and look at all aspects not just ones that back up your arguments. That is what an unbiased expert would do.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 25, 2013, 00:40
Interesting article about cycling holidays that immediately brings into play the 'Bilharzia card'
...so it's not just us crackpots mired in the dark reaches of the forum :)

http://www.cyclefiesta.com/multimedia/articles/rise-of-chris-froome.htm

oh! they also offer trips to Tenerife..:ocean, sun, and volcano :O
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 25, 2013, 01:58
The problem with having people who are not experts having this discussion is a total lack of balance. You find an article by a german guy that says it never goes on for more than two weeks. There are also loads of articles that say it can and people can need repeat treatments after a year. that the disease can present for long periods making diagnosis of re infection rates hard. Every time people say this you seem to ignore it and go out and find another article that backs up your version and yet seem to skip over all the articles that disagree with you. Have yet to see you respond to points like

a) why would he lie, what does he benefit from lying, what is your hypothesis?

Nothing sinister, IMO. Just incompetence. Sky claims to be attentive to detail, but the information they have put out on schistosomiasis is just one example of how incompetent they can be. As I noted before, someone at Sky said the eggs can hatch in the human body, which is simply false.

Quote
b) why are their numerous articles that suggest that follow ups be carried out at 6 months and a year. this is mentioned a lot so if there is never ever any need to go beyond 2 weeks why would this be required

Care to provide links? All the literature I have seen says there is a very high cure rate with one day treatment.

I'm not sure, but I think what you are referring to are studies of people in areas where the risk of reinfection is high. In other words, after treatment, many of the individuals go back to the same contaminated waters where they were first infected, and become reinfected. Indeed, if you want to have sufficiently large populations of subjects to do adequate statistics, you must carry out studies in these areas. Researchers can’t simply go around and collect people like Froome, who were infected once and should never be at risk for reinfection. There aren’t enough such people in any place where reinfection risk is very small or null.

If I'm mistaken, and you actually have found studies of large numbers of subjects like these, I would be most interested in seeing them, as I have not been able to find any. But for more on followups of people who are not at risk for reinfection, see below, where I mention the effect of the eggs.

Quote
c) why do people discuss how hard it is to judge reinfection rates and the success rates of medication because the disease can represent afterwards even though subjects have improved

Assuming, as I said above, that you are referring to studies carried out in areas where risk of reinfection is high, then analysis is complicated, because you don't know if a particular individual has become reinfected, or if all the original worms were not killed. This would be the case in the first few weeks or so after treatment. Also complicating analysis is that if an individual is treated once, symptoms upon reinfection are usually reduced.

Quote
d) why are some patients given repeat doses a year later?

Again, in the absence of seeing your links, I assume you are referring to individuals at risk for reinfection. For individuals who are not reinfected, the relevant factor is the eggs. The drug praziquantel kills the worms, not the eggs, but the eggs actually cause the symptoms. Since some eggs may remain in the body for some time after the worms are gone, follow- up treatment may be needed to assess any damage they may be doing. Praziquantel, however, would not be used in such treatment.

Quote
e) what about the 10% (roughly 50 million people at current infection rates) that the drug does not work for

I believe about 250 million, not 500 million, people are infected with one or another species of these worms. There are several other drugs available besides praziquantel, some of them specific for certain geographical areas or locus of infection (i.e., urinary). Other new drugs are being tested. If Froome were not responsive to praziquantel, though, I assume this would have been discovered after his initial treatment, and subsequent treatments would have employed other drugs or other procedures.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: theHog on July 25, 2013, 02:19
See ive seen a number of things with Froome, commitment, and also experience etc, a disciplined training regime, and to an extent self beleif. Add into that "marginal gains", treatment, age, (the peloton becoming cleaner ;)), and there are a whole bunch of factors (claimed) to be the reason.

just wondering where it fits in in all this.

fwiw, Im all into investigating wether Froome is doping, Im just finding the whole BhIlzaria thing a bit of a diversion, white elephant, not totally relevant.

Dope acts at a great motivator. When you start smashing training and your training partners its a lot of good fun. Beating your own records etc. Doping is motivation and commitment.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 25, 2013, 02:45
The problem with having people who are not experts having this discussion is a total lack of balance. You find an article by a german guy that says it never goes on for more than two weeks.
Correction, search (not me) found an interview with a tropical disease expert. A little bit different than just some  German guy .

Also I definately never said "never". You are putting words into my mouth.

I actually quite clearly specified that what i was talking about was not "always" the case.

Quote
in almost all cases
- post 13.25 gmt.

Quote
There are also loads of articles that say it can and people can need repeat treatments after a year, that the disease can present for long periods making diagnosis of re infection rates hard. Every time people say this you seem to ignore it and go out and find another article that backs up your version and yet seem to skip over all the articles that disagree with you. Have yet to see you respond to points like.

Actually the last time this was brought up I did respond.

Both when it was brought up by dim once yesterday, once the day before and also by Captain Cavman earlier today. 

 So your accusations are once again totally off mark.

And i dont get your complaint about the articles. The articles I have linked are all from experts. Decoded science (hardly an anti froome site). Which was actually written in support of Froome.
The german tropical disease expert.

The photoscan of the  thorough scientific description of Biltricide from the manufacturer.

From the manufacturer.

 Its not like I'm quoting posts from wehatesky.org now am I. If you want to dispute the validity of these links and the points made feel free to offer your own.

Quote
Have yet to see you respond to points like

a) why would he lie, what does he benefit from lying, what is your hypothesis?

Why would I respond to that. That would go totally against the scientific nature of the discussion. I and others are discussing what Froome has said and showing just how wrong they are. Disproving what has been said. Not making up wild theories as to what their motivation is. We don't know what their motivation is. Lack of motivation does not change what they have done.

Quote
b) why are their numerous articles that suggest that follow ups be carried out at 6 months and a year. this is mentioned a lot so if there is never ever any need to go beyond 2 weeks why would this be required
For someone who just strongly attacked me  for allegedly  only using articles that "backup your version", you have curiously not actually offered any yourself. I don't see how you can fault me for showing backup when you offer none yourself. Where are these articles you mention? Where does it say those things?

Quote
c) why do people discuss how hard it is to judge reinfection rates and the success rates of medication because the disease can represent afterwards even though subjects have improved

I have adressed that actually, so again your accusation that I haven't is false and dishonest.

 I asked the person who said it if they got that info from the carter foundation because the carter foundation is a charity that deals with poor people in LEDC countries and their concern with Bilzharia is its effect in areas where it is a serious danger. Patients who are at risk of getting reinfected get doses a year later, as far as I understand.

Quote
d) why are some patients given repeat doses a year later?.
See above.

Quote

this information is all out there. in your searches you seemed to have missed them. maybe you should try reading more on the subject and look at all aspects not just ones that back up your arguments. That is what an unbiased expert would do

Thats a very harsh accusation.

Do you forget that the moment people started questioning froome on bilharzia and you offered a defence of froome on twitter  I pmd you asking for your explanation, precisely because I wanted to hear counterarguments?

Here is a copy of the pm i sent you last week for everyone else to see

As it is does not contain any information you sent to me and entirely what i sent to you as i understand it is perfectly within the rules of the forum.

Quote
Bilharzia
« Sent to: DinZ on: July 19, 2013, 00:49 »

I read the theories on CN yesterday about alleged inconsistancies between Froomes treatment and "usual treatment".

Though as you know i am very much on the other side of the debate from you as regards whether i think he dopes, i know very little about science whereas you as i recall do, so I would  like to hear the other side of the story on this . You say on twitter that anti bodies can continue to live on years after Bilharzia is removed. Would this mean it would be like having the disease constantly. Like having the disease occasionally. Would the same treatment be required for anti bodies as for the original disease?  How long might this last for. Would it improve gradually over time.  Would the lenght be related to the severity of the original disease?

Just some quick answers if you have time.

Thanks.

Now, with that in mind are you seriously going to accuse me of being biased and only seeking out information that suits my side of the story?

 After I deliberately contacted you  the moment i had finished reading the case against froome on cn asking for counterarguments?

You want to revise or retract that accusation maybe?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 25, 2013, 03:38
MI - have seen a few different numbers for infections. Varies from 250 million to 500 million. i think WHO says about 250 million with 5-600 million 'at risk' or 'exposed to' and then that has been taken in other scientific reports to be 500 million infected. I guess if you are asking for funding for work on Bilharzia it pays to use 500 rather than 250 million.

this is stuff i could find really quickly. there was loads more but i spent way too much of my work time already this week on reading this stuff so will have to wait till weekend if you want any more. My point was there is plenty of papers out there that suggest that what we are hearing about may not be the standard case for most but is a long way from totally unbelievable. therefore i am wary when all i see is papers that present the view being put forward

as an aside one report seems to imply only 1-2% of cases are treated? not sure that is right? if so that is incredible, given they estimate that without treatment 1 in 100 will die from the disease. I have a feeling that was an old study and treatment is more accessible now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2396036/

also reading this stuff is depressing in terms of effectiveness of studies in africa. some sinking funding into countries but never get results back

found one i read where it says the woman made recovery but was still given follow up treatment a year later

Quote
Following the discovery that she had swum in Lake
Victoria during the church retreat, together with the
10-year-old girl already being treated for bilharzia, she
was promptly diagnosed with Katayama syndrome1–3
and treated with praziquantel. She improved rapidly
and was discharged on October 31. A serological test
for bilharzia at CTTM 1 year later gave a titer of
1 : 128, and she was re-treated with praziquantel to
ensure complete parasitological cure.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2011.00558.x/pdf

with regards follow up this one highly suggests follow up testing to check for possibly need for re-treatment should tests show presence

Quote
FOLLOW-UP
Follow-up Schistosomiasis serology is recommended in 12 to 36
months after treatment. Follow-up serology may differ between
immigrants and returned travellers. Travellers may show a more
rapid serological decline post-treatment due to a shorter duration of
infection and lower parasite burden. Immigrants may even show a
rise in titre within the first 6 to12 months post-treatment. Persisting
titres should not automatically justify retreatment, this should be
based on symptoms, parasite identification or eosinophilia. Viable
eggs may continue to be excreted for up to one month after
successful treatment. Non-viable and degenerate eggs can be
found in tissue biopsies for years after infection has occurred.

http://www.snp.com.au/media/160501/schistosomiasis.pdf

the one on difficulty in judging reinfection rates was a clinical trial for a new treatment where they were justifying the methods that would be used (eggs and stools in some standard test) because otherwise it is really difficult to judge if someone had been reinfected or had been not fully cured, or even partially cured and not requiring further treatment. cannot find it now. i think in case of someone like Froome then reduced likelihood of reinfection should be an indicator but also saw an article saying he was back in Kenya on some charity ride in off season 2010-2011 so reinfection was possible.

also appears you need to be a member of various groups to read some of the other interesting sounding papers

one bit i am not sure of with the eggs is i have seen mention that a lot of what people see as symptoms of the disease are caused by the presence of the eggs the system and the body fighting them. therefore you would think if eggs can last in the system for a long time after treatment (which seems the case) then the symptoms would persist. but then in most cases it implies the symptoms will die away after treatment and the presence of symptoms would imply reinfection or a failed cure.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 25, 2013, 03:46
Correction, search (not me) found an interview with a tropical disease expert. A little bit different than just some  German guy .

Also I definately never said "never". You are putting words into my mouth.

I actually quite clearly specified that what i was talking about was not "always" the case.
 - post 13.25 gmt.

Actually the last time this was brought up I did respond.

Both when it was brought up by dim once yesterday, once the day before and also by Captain Cavman earlier today. 

 So your accusations are once again totally off mark.

And i dont get your complaint about the articles. The articles I have linked are all from experts. Decoded science (hardly an anti froome site). Which was actually written in support of Froome.
The german tropical disease expert.

The photoscan of the  thorough scientific description of Biltricide from the manufacturer.

From the manufacturer.

 Its not like I'm quoting posts from wehatesky.org now am I. If you want to dispute the validity of these links and the points made feel free to offer your own.

Why would I respond to that. That would go totally against the scientific nature of the discussion. I and others are discussing what Froome has said and showing just how wrong they are. Disproving what has been said. Not making up wild theories as to what their motivation is. We don't know what their motivation is. Lack of motivation does not change what they have done.
For someone who just strongly attacked me  for allegedly  only using articles that "backup your version", you have curiously not actually offered any yourself. I don't see how you can fault me for showing backup when you offer none yourself. Where are these articles you mention? Where does it say those things?

I have adressed that actually, so again your accusation that I haven't is false and dishonest.

 I asked the person who said it if they got that info from the carter foundation because the carter foundation is a charity that deals with poor people in LEDC countries and their concern with Bilzharia is its effect in areas where it is a serious danger. Patients who are at risk of getting reinfected get doses a year later, as far as I understand.
See above.

Thats a very harsh accusation.

Do you forget that the moment people started questioning froome on bilharzia and you offered a defence of froome on twitter  I pmd you asking for your explanation, precisely because I wanted to hear counterarguments?

Here is a copy of the pm i sent you last week for everyone else to see

As it is does not contain any information you sent to me and entirely what i sent to you as i understand it is perfectly within the rules of the forum.

Now, with that in mind are you seriously going to accuse me of being biased and only seeking out information that suits my side of the story?

 After I deliberately contacted you  the moment i had finished reading the case against froome on cn asking for counterarguments?

You want to revise or retract that accusation maybe?

nope as i noticed that you did not make use of anything i told you about it. seeking it out and ignoring it is not being balanced

and providing articles does not provide balance if you do not read all the articles that also counter your point of view.
you have said you are approaching the subject scientifically i am arguing that if that was the case you would have done more research to counter any claims made by others or that are counter to your approach

if all you are doing is presenting one side of a discussion on the internet then that is fine but do not act like there is more to it than that.

and so refuse to answer the question on motivation is fairly key. if there is no reason to lie and no benefit to be gained from lying then the chances are they are no lying and therefore more reason for you to look into whether there is any validity to your claims.

so finally in your post you say something is NOT ALWAYS the case, so we are agreed then. His treatment was not standard but also not completely unbelievable.

is the treatment Chris Froome talked about getting the standard for everyone that gets Bilharzia. No.
is the treatment Chris Froome talked about getting completely unreasonable for Bilharzia. No.
Does most of what has been seen fit with the treatment program described. Yes
Has anyone presented anything that shows how he would benefit from lying about the treatment he got. No.
so what exactly is the point of this discussion?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 25, 2013, 03:52
and now i am reading a flipping book on Bilharzia. This place will get me fired
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 25, 2013, 04:30
DinZ, your three links basically reinforce what I said. Yes, the eggs can remain in the body for a long time, and this can be checked by antibodies, which are made in response to antigens released by the eggs.

The one case of the woman who swam in Lake Victoria is not clear to me. It's an interesting study in that there was a group of people who apparently were not at risk for being reinfected, though since they lived in East Africa, I don't see how that could be certain.  However, it was not clear to me whether her antibodies after a year were to the worms or the eggs. If they were to the eggs, it's possible they gave her another dose of praziquantel just to be certain that all the worms were dead. I'm not sure anything else can be done in that case. The article also notes that the woman's condition improved rapidly after the initial treatment and there is nothing about symptoms a year later. Sounds to me mostly precautionary. The drug is super-cheap and generally there is no problem with side effects, so really nothing to lose.

Anyway, it was just one case. One of your linked articles states that the cure rate is about 90%, in line with what I've seen elsewhere. I haven't seen any articles stating that long-term infection with worms in someone initially treated with prazi is a common problem, except in those who don't respond to the drug.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DinZ on July 25, 2013, 04:50
Yeah that was one thing that i confused by with the eggs still in body but almost immediate improvement in symptoms? against the fact that the symptoms are caused by presence of eggs in body.

not really relevant to this discussion (except on my understanding the presentation of symptoms in July 2011 implies either reinfection or that the initial treatment did not work)

think the reinfection thing was because they were from an urban area so not considered an at risk group. i think it said none of the group had ever had disease before and only person that was not infected was a local, implying some sort of inherent local immunity

guess my point relates to my final point in the above post. I have seen enough comments in enough different things about follow ups and repeat doses for me to believe that while his treatment may not have been standard it is far from unreasonable.

i am now learning about the social impacts on infection and treatment rates with has nothing to do with cycling but strangely fascinating. or at least more fascinating than the test scripts i should be writing
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 25, 2013, 05:08
Yeah that was one thing that i confused by with the eggs still in body but almost immediate improvement in symptoms? against the fact that the symptoms are caused by presence of eggs in body.

I think it's a matter of quantity. Each female worm can lay several hundred to several thousand eggs per day, depending on species. When the worms are killed, the increase stops, and the immune system can quickly handle the eggs that remain. As long as the worms are present, the immune system is overwhelmed. It's like the early stages of the flu.

Some eggs may persist for years, but don't necessarily cause symptoms.

One thing that puzzled me at first is why, if the worms eat red cells, there isn't a drop in hematocrit. Females can ingest more than 300,000 red cells per day. That sounds like a lot, but there are roughly 40 billion in the circulatory system. So unless you have a very heavy infestation of worms that remain untreated, the loss is a tiny blip and can be easily replaced by ongoing synthesis.

The eggs in contrast are numerous, and apparently flood the blood stream with antigens that react with hemoglobin. But anemia is thought to be caused by other factors as well.



Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 25, 2013, 10:38
I guess if you are asking for funding for work on Bilharzia it pays to use 500 rather than 250 million.

also reading this stuff is depressing in terms of effectiveness of studies in africa. some sinking funding into countries but never get results back

I never stop at conventional/mainstream medicine since I ended up using herbs/natural remedies to cure whatever ails me, and have much more successs that way than with any pills a doc/pharmacist ever gave me. We've all heard the term Big Pharma, the best scientific results that money can buy... My sister is currently doing her post-doctorate in human genetics, her private business so I'm not going to over share, let's just say that students like her (and she's already 30, been studying for years, obviously) rely heavily on funding for their research and as such they have to choose topics that will be "supported" by funding.. I was going to say this is more for the 'News' thread, but it's actually quite artificial to separate sport and serious news, because at the end of the day these things definitely affect one another, but won't elaborate here.

As for this stuff being so depressing to read - very true - it's flipping sad.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 25, 2013, 10:39
and now i am reading a flipping book on Bilharzia. This place will get me fired

*PMSL*
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 25, 2013, 18:44
There are also loads of articles that say it can and people can need repeat treatments after a year.
It is possible that another round of treatment is needed in some cases.  What you are granting is there's some kind of slumbering parasite.  There is not.  They retest weeks after medication for the presence of adult parasite markers.

that the disease can present for long periods making diagnosis of re infection rates hard.
This is merging two things that together that prove nothing.  The disease can be present for long periods.  If the parasite is present for long periods, then the tests will return positive as mature parasite markers/eggs in stool will be present.
Diagnosis of reinfection is straightforward.  Test some weeks after treatment, test again later still.  There are no slumbering parasites.
a) why would he lie, what does he benefit from lying, what is your hypothesis?
You have some ideas I'm sure.  What could be his motivation?

c) why do people discuss how hard it is to judge reinfection rates and the success rates of medication because the disease can represent afterwards even though subjects have improved
Because they are largely non-industrialized locales with limited access to health care required to track the parasite.

d) why are some patients given repeat doses a year later?
Because they were reinfected.  Geography and economics/public health are critical factors that you are trying to use to then apply to Froome's case.  Is the parasite common in Monaco?
 
e) what about the 10% (roughly 50 million people at current infection rates) that the drug does not work for
How many live in Monaco?  How many live in the industrialized northern hemisphere?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: horsinabout on July 25, 2013, 20:33
It is possible that another round of treatment is needed in some cases.  What you are granting is there's some kind of slumbering parasite.  There is not.  They retest weeks after medication for the presence of adult parasite markers.
This is merging two things that together that prove nothing.  The disease can be present for long periods.  If the parasite is present for long periods, then the tests will return positive as mature parasite markers/eggs in stool will be present.
Diagnosis of reinfection is straightforward.  Test some weeks after treatment, test again later still.  There are no slumbering parasites.You have some ideas I'm sure.  What could be his motivation?
Because they are largely non-industrialized locales with limited access to health care required to track the parasite.
Because they were reinfected.  Geography and economics/public health are critical factors that you are trying to use to then apply to Froome's case.  Is the parasite common in Monaco?
 How many live in Monaco?  How many live in the industrialized northern hemisphere?

All very interesting analysis on the treatment of a parasitic condition, how ever, isn't this just a huge distraction from Froome and his very suspicious domination in the Tour. 

The best media response to Froome's Tour win was Jon Snow C4 news interview (now on youtube).  It was pepper with innuendo on 2013 Tour win, and I quote,  "Are you friends with Bradley Wiggins or is it an 'electric' rivalry?    Hope you find my first post agreeable :serious
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Dim on July 25, 2013, 20:36
All very interesting analysis on the treatment of a parasitic condition, how ever, isn't this just a huge distraction from Froome and his very suspicious domination in the Tour. 

This is my entire thought on Bilzaria, its distracted from the actual debate. Trouble is, ive long forgotten what the actual debate was really. Back to the 98 positives :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: horsinabout on July 25, 2013, 20:46
This is my entire thought on Bilzaria, its distracted from the actual debate. Trouble is, ive long forgotten what the actual debate was really. Back to the 98 positives :D

And right there is another distraction, it's in the past forget about it  :yuush
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 25, 2013, 20:49
All very interesting analysis on the treatment of a parasitic condition, how ever, isn't this just a huge distraction from Froome and his very suspicious domination in the Tour. 

The best media response to Froome's Tour win was Jon Snow C4 news interview (now on youtube).  It was pepper with innuendo on 2013 Tour win, and I quote,  "Are you friends with Bradley Wiggins or is it an 'electric' rivalry?   Electric being a subtle hint in the right direction towards the truth of his spectacular climb up Mont Vontoux.  Hope you find my first post agreeable :serious

I think the whole issue on this thread is exactly what constitutes very suspicious domination in the Tour? And I wouldn't worry about being agreeable, it's highly overrated :brzzzz  :D

I think one can investigate this condition without losing sight of the complete circumstances, but it's not easy. That's why some people urge circumspection, so that we don't get carried away by this and make it the make or break.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 25, 2013, 21:02
Chris Froome is innocent/guilty(please delete which one is applicable for your needs) period!

:karen
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 25, 2013, 21:08
You have not read some links that I claim to have seen but refuse to show you ergo you are  biased.

Excuse me, that is the 3rd post that  you moan about me not "reading all the links", yet not once have you actually shown me what these links are or explained how they contradict the ones I have used.

If you plain out refuse to show me these links, how on earth can you accuse me of ignoring them?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 25, 2013, 21:43
This is my entire thought on Bilzaria, its distracted from the actual debate. Trouble is, ive long forgotten what the actual debate was really. Back to the 98 positives :D

Exactly!
How Bilharzia works or not ...isn't the main issue..
It's been thrown up as a red herring really to explain away the 'sudden emergence ' of a super GT rider

THAT IS MY OPINION
:brains
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 25, 2013, 22:11
Googling for stuff on Froome ans became interested in his agent. Was trying to find a client list but could only piece together partial lists from interviews/articles. If anyone can improve this I'd be appreciative. Looking for some commonality between the names.

Edit: got a full list.

Augustyn, Balloni, Bertagnolli, Betancourt, Bole, Bono, Brajkovic, Bruseghin, Canuti, Caruso, Cataldo, Chiarini, Chicchi, Cimolai, Clarke, Cunego, Eisel, Ermeti, Failli, Favilli, Ferrari, Fischer, Flecha, Froome, Gavazzi, Ginanni, Hondo, Hunter, Hushovd, Kirchen, Kump, Lancaster, Lloyd, Lorenzetto, Marzano, Masciarelli, Mate, Miholjevic, Modolo, Monsalve, Mori, Moser, Napolitano, Nibali, Noncenti, Paolini, Pellizotti, Petacchi, Ponzi, Possoni, Proni, Rabottini, Renshaw, Santambrogio, Santoro, Sarmiento,Smukulis, Spilak, Taaramae, Taborre, Tiralongo, Ulissi, Vanotti

Formerly Di Luca, Kreuziger, Novikov, Ricco, Wegelius


Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 25, 2013, 22:16
Was trying to find a client list but could only piece together partial lists from interviews/articles. Looking for some commonality between the names.

Can I ask why? Do you think a suspected doper might be linked to other dopers through his agent?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 25, 2013, 22:18
Why not? Clearly no slam dunk here anyway, but still interested.

Say for example all the known Ferrari clients had the same agent. You'd raise an eyebrow.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 13:18
Eat sushi? ham? etc? Even veggies aren't safe, Chief Two Trees has spoken..

Quote
The treatment for parasites has been a part of just about everyone's culture no matter where they live on the planet. But we have strayed away from taking a parasite cleanse on a regular cyclical basis because of our heavy reliance on western medicine and concepts which all but ignore the possibility of parasitic infections in people who live in an industrialized society. For some reason, we believe that if you live in the modern world, you do not get parasites unless you travel to places we generally refer to as the Third World (underdeveloped countries). This, of course, is total nonsense given the fact that parasites do not have geographical boundaries and they are transmitted most commonly in both water and food. Parasites are in all types of foods, plants, and are regularly transmitted via contact with animals. Many of my patients who are vegetarians believe they will not get parasites because they do not eat meat. However, there are many, many parasites that contaminate green leafy vegetables and other plant foods. In addition, many of the most commonly transmitted parasites are water born..........You will notice that I will always recommend that more than one product be taken for parasites. Over the years, I have found that many parasites are resistant to one or another product and sometimes people have multiple infections of parasites (more than one type of parasite living in them). Therefore, a broad-spectrum attack should be mounted and these products have held me in great stead for the past decade.

http://www.burtonwellnesscenter.com/index.cfm?do=Parasites

Parasites are not just a 3rd World problem. Have you guys checked your poo yet? #ImNotKidding
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 26, 2013, 13:48
And the point?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 14:35
And the point?

Is that in response to my post? If so I dare say the post itself makes a very clear point?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Zam on July 26, 2013, 14:38
Is that in response to my post? If so I dare say the post itself makes a very clear point?

with bilharzia and chris froome?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 14:49
with bilharzia and chris froome?

The article addresses a couple of things mentioned on this thread - i.a. the fact that parasitic cleanses/treatments are not just 'one offs' and looks at it from another angle than the 'take one pill' treatment. Here is another quote from it
Quote
You will notice that I will always recommend that more than one product be taken for parasites. Over the years, I have found that many parasites are resistant to one or another product and sometimes people have multiple infections of parasites (more than one type of parasite living in them). Therefore, a broad-spectrum attack should be mounted and these products have held me in great stead for the past decade
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 26, 2013, 14:56
The article addresses a couple of things mentioned on this thread - i.a. the fact that parasitic cleanses/treatments are not just 'one offs' and looks at it from another angle than the 'take one pill' treatment. Here is another quote from it

Well there is an obvious flaw in that you are looking at parasites in general and not Froome's specific parasite - Bilharzia.

Its like if someone was bitten by a rattlesnake and we were discussing how much damage the venom might cause and you came up with an article on snakes in general that said many snakes aren't venomous.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2013, 15:00
And now back to Froome, folks, thanks.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 15:06
And now back to Froome, folks, thanks.

L'arri, some clarity, please, I am talking about parasitic infections, Bilharzia is part of that - am I off topic?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2013, 15:11
L'arri, some clarity, please, I am talking about parasitic infections, Bilharzia is part of that - am I off topic?

No, not in itself, but since rattlesnakes had come up by way of a response to you, we don't want the thread to head inexorably towards becoming the Online Centre for Tropical Disease Research.

I'm not making a big point, just making sure we don't stray too far from the campfire: there are all manner of dangerous organisms out there in the darkness. :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 15:15
No, not in itself, but since rattlesnakes had come up by way of a response to you, we don't want the thread to head inexorably towards becoming the Online Centre for Tropical Disease Research.

I'm not making a big point, just making sure we don't stray too far from the campfire: there are all manner of dangerous organisms out there in the darkness. :D

Oh L'arri, you're just too funny :secretlol Cool, just checking, I wasn't sure.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 26, 2013, 15:20
And just to be clear, bilharzia discussion is fine if it relates to the propositions of Froome.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: taiwan on July 26, 2013, 15:52
If it's going to generate this much text, biharzia could do with it's owb thread IMHO. At this point it's barely on topic if at all. I know more about flipping bilharzia than I could ever want to :(
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 26, 2013, 17:26
All very interesting analysis on the treatment of a parasitic condition, how ever, isn't this just a huge distraction from Froome and his very suspicious domination in the Tour. 

The point of bringing the parasite up in the first place was Froome's interviews/reports tell a story that his grand tour domination was never known prior to Sky because of the parasite.  From there, a number of people tried very hard to deny the many problems with the parasite excuse.

A reasonable person can assume he did have the disease, was treated, and eventually cured, but *everything* else about the story is suspect.  It only lends more credibility to another grand tour podium filled with dopers.  Which, apparently does not go down well with some despite EPO-and-after grand tour history.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 26, 2013, 18:14
From there, a number of people tried very hard to deny the many problems with the parasite excuse...A reasonable person

For the record, I'm not pushing to say the curing of Bilharzia caused his progression, I'm just trying to understand all the available science around it. To me that would be reasonable, you know?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: l29205 on July 26, 2013, 18:31
A reasonable person can assume he did have the disease, was treated, and eventually cured, but *everything* else about the story is suspect.  It only lends more credibility to another grand tour podium filled with dopers.  Which, apparently does not go down well with some despite EPO-and-after grand tour history.

I agree that the story is more of a distraction and leads people into believing that everyone is still doping.  My opinion right now I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens moving forward.  I still am not sure if the disease in question would have had that much of an affect on him.  Nor should it continue to have affects after treatment.  In my mind is he suspect yes but proven not quite yet. :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 26, 2013, 18:41
The point of bringing the parasite up in the first place was Froome's interviews/reports tell a story that his grand tour domination was never known prior to Sky because of the parasite.  From there, a number of people tried very hard to deny the many problems with the parasite excuse.

A reasonable person can assume he did have the disease, was treated, and eventually cured, but *everything* else about the story is suspect. It only lends more credibility to another grand tour podium filled with dopers.  Which, apparently does not go down well with some despite EPO-and-after grand tour history.

I think the bold puts it very well. To summarize the problems with the Froome story as I have seen it:

1)   At least one blatant falsehood- that the eggs can hatch in the human body (I don’t think Froome himself ever said this, but anyone like Brailsford or Michele Chound speaking on his behalf should get the facts straight)

2)   The claim that multiple treatments are necessary. It may be recommended that individuals, once treated, return periodically for checkups to see that there are no symptoms, the eggs are being excreted, the antibody titer is low, and so on. And if there is a problem, maybe further treatment is necessary. But as I understand the disease, one treatment (that is, several doses within a day or so) with praziquantel usually suffices. Maybe in rare cases all the worms aren’t killed, and further treatment with the drug is needed. But Froome or someone speaking on his behalf strongly implied that he had to be treated with this drug every six months. This does not jibe with anything I’ve read about the disease. Maybe sometimes there is a problem with residual eggs in the body—it is well-documented that some can remain in the body for years, though generally not causing symptoms--but this would not be treated with praziquantel.

3)   Froome has claimed that following  treatment, he can’t train for about a week because of side effects. Yet it’s widely reported in the literature that the side effects of the drug are minor. Not to mention that, as I pointed out in 2), there doesn’t seem to be any reason why he should be treated with praziquantel more than once or twice.

In addition to statements about the disease that don’t seem right, there are several problems with Froome and/or Sky suggesting that his big performance jump in 2011 resulted from treatment of the disease:

1)   If the disease was affecting his performance prior to 2011, so much so that following treatment an also-ran became the dominant stage rider in the world, then it follows that before he had the disease he should also have exhibited extraordinary performance. Even allowing for the fact that he was a neophyte pro or amateur during this period, and would have improved somewhat from training and age, he should at the very least have been noticeably better before he had the disease than after it. But his record does not suggest this.

To be sure, we don’t know when he got the disease. He suggested it might have been at the end of 2009, about a year before his diagnosis and treatment. Possibly it could have been sooner. But he himself has never suggested that he had it during his entire pro career (beginning in 2007), and surely if it impacted his performance significantly, he would have been aware of a problem and actively sought out medical help fairly soon after getting it.

2)   Walsh claims to have seen Froome’s passport prior to 2011, and vouches that it was essentially unchanged after 2011. IOW, whatever the cause of his big performance change, it’s not to be found in manipulation of his blood values. But schistosomiasis is well known to result in a significant reduction of hemoglobin levels, which would be readily detected by the passport.

There are numerous other effects of the disease, many of which might impact performance. But if his disease was not severe enough to cause a noticeable drop in hemoglobin, one may certainly question whether it would have affected performance significantly in other ways, either. The loss of hemoglobin is caused by antigens released by the eggs, which also are the source of other medical problems.

3) Another inconsistency in this story is raised by Froome's statement that the disease was first detected when doctors at Sky analyzed his blood carefully. Though I've not seen any detail on the analysis, assuming Froome had no idea at the time that he had schistosomiasis (only that something was wrong), there  would have been no reason to test for the worms. I assume they simply found some unexpected blood values, one possible explanation of which was schistosomiasis. But what were these altered values that they would not have been detected in the passport? I'm not saying there couldn't have been any, but what were they, and why did they exist even though hemoglobin levels were normal?

To be fair to Froome, I don’t think he’s ever stated that he was sure the disease held him back before 2011. Having the disease, and having a large change in performance that is difficult to explain, it’s natural he might throw it out as a possible explanation. IOW, I’m not going to impugn his motives without more evidence. But I think the questions that have been raised are sufficient to make anyone seriously question the idea that this was a major factor in his sudden rise to dominance. And it also reveals a sloppiness, really a lack of professionalism, in the statements made to the public.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: wwabbit on July 26, 2013, 20:20
2)   The claim that multiple treatments are necessary. It may be recommended that individuals, once treated, return periodically for checkups to see that there are no symptoms, the eggs are being excreted, the antibody titer is low, and so on. And if there is a problem, maybe further treatment is necessary. But as I understand the disease, one treatment (that is, several doses within a day or so) with praziquantel usually suffices. Maybe in rare cases all the worms aren’t killed, and further treatment with the drug is needed. But Froome or someone speaking on his behalf strongly implied that he had to be treated with this drug every six months. This does not jibe with anything I’ve read about the disease. Maybe sometimes there is a problem with residual eggs in the body—it is well-documented that some can remain in the body for years, though generally not causing symptoms--but this would not be treated with praziquantel.

I don't think this is completely correct. From my reading around, about half the eggs are excreted while the other half gets trapped in the body. While the worms may feed on red blood cells, it is the eggs (or rather, the immune responses to the antigens secreted by the eggs) that causes the various symptoms of Bilharzia. But I think you are right that praziquantel treatment will probably not get rid of the trapped eggs.

Quote
3)   Froome has claimed that following  treatment, he can’t train for about a week because of side effects. Yet it’s widely reported in the literature that the side effects of the drug are minor. Not to mention that, as I pointed out in 2), there doesn’t seem to be any reason why he should be treated with praziquantel more than once or twice.

This does seem odd to me. Perhaps he picked up a strain of parasites that are resistant to praziquantel, or his terrible doctors are trying to use praziquantel to get rid of trapped eggs, or... well, there are other reasons I can think of. One thing for sure, Froome isn't using extra praziquantel treatments to get a unfair performance advantage!

Quote
2)   Walsh claims to have seen Froome’s passport prior to 2011, and vouches that it was essentially unchanged after 2011. IOW, whatever the cause of his big performance change, it’s not to be found in manipulation of his blood values. But schistosomiasis is well known to result in a significant reduction of hemoglobin levels, which would be readily detected by the passport.

There are numerous other effects of the disease, many of which might impact performance. But if his disease was not severe enough to cause a noticeable drop in hemoglobin, one may certainly question whether it would have affected performance significantly in other ways, either. The loss of hemoglobin is caused by antigens released by the eggs, which also are the source of other medical problems.

I don't think this is proven. While it is said that the parasites can feed on the red blood cells, I haven't seen any sources that confirms that any reduction in RBC will be significant enough to show up on the passport. Obviously this will vary between victims, and will depend on many various factors including how many parasites were in the body. Response of the immune system varies between different people, so if a person doesn't suffer from one symptom, it doesn't mean that he could not have had enough Bilharzia to suffer from other symptoms.

Quote
3) Another inconsistency in this story is raised by Froome's statement that the disease was first detected when doctors at Sky analyzed his blood carefully. Though I've not seen any detail on the analysis, assuming Froome had no idea at the time that he had schistosomiasis (only that something was wrong), there  would have been no reason to test for the worms. I assume they simply found some unexpected blood values, one possible explanation of which was schistosomiasis. But what were these altered values that they would not have been detected in the passport? I'm not saying there couldn't have been any, but what were they, and why did they exist even though hemoglobin levels were normal?

"It was only when visiting Kenya that, before a routine UCI blood passport test, Froome asked the doctor to see if he could identify a cause of his mysterious exhaustion and sickness. The Kenyan blood tests proved that Froome was riddled with bilharzia."

The blood analysis was done as a response to Froome's frequent illnesses, not as a response to blood passport value changes

Quote
But I think the questions that have been raised are sufficient to make anyone seriously question the idea that this was a major factor in his sudden rise to dominance.

To be fair, Bilharzia treatment is not the only factor (besides doping) that has been used to explain Froome's rise.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 26, 2013, 22:23
I don't think this is completely correct. From my reading around, about half the eggs are excreted while the other half gets trapped in the body. While the worms may feed on red blood cells, it is the eggs (or rather, the immune responses to the antigens secreted by the eggs) that causes the various symptoms of Bilharzia. But I think you are right that praziquantel treatment will probably not get rid of the trapped eggs.

Let me reiterate what I said in an earlier post so that we're clear here. Yes, the eggs are the cause of the symptoms, I noted this before. But the reason the worms must be killed is because they lay hundreds to thousands of eggs a day. This is the problem. If the worms are killed, the immune system can eventually destroy all or most of the eggs. But if the worms are alive and continuing to lay eggs, the immune system is overwhelmed. A female worm is basically a machine that converts red blood cells into eggs.

Even after all the worms are killed, some eggs may remain indefinitely in the body. This is generally not a problem. If they remain for long periods of time, it's because they aren't accessible to the immune system, and if they aren't accessible to the immune system, they most likely aren't causing symptoms.

Quote
This does seem odd to me. Perhaps he picked up a strain of parasites that are resistant to praziquantel, or his terrible doctors are trying to use praziquantel to get rid of trapped eggs, or... well, there are other reasons I can think of. One thing for sure, Froome isn't using extra praziquantel treatments to get a unfair performance advantage!

I doubt this very much. As DinZ pointed out, 10% or more of individuals with the disease may be resistant to praziquantel. But if Froome is one of these, that should have been discovered fairly quickly, and another drug tried. In fact, it's clear from his statements that the treatments have worked, because he has emphasized how much better he got after treatment. He wouldn't get better unless the worms were killed.

He might be somewhat resistant, so that some but not all of the worms are killed by a single treatment. Maybe he needed a second treatment with prazi. But in any case, I've seen nothing in the literature to explain why following treatment Froome would not be able to train properly for a week or more. There might be a period following death of the worms when the immune system comes in and mops up, but again, one would not expect this problem multiple times. Maybe once or twice, but not repeatedly.

Quote
I don't think this is proven. While it is said that the parasites can feed on the red blood cells, I haven't seen any sources that confirms that any reduction in RBC will be significant enough to show up on the passport. Obviously this will vary between victims, and will depend on many various factors including how many parasites were in the body. Response of the immune system varies between different people, so if a person doesn't suffer from one symptom, it doesn't mean that he could not have had enough Bilharzia to suffer from other symptoms.

I also covered this in previous posts. There generally is not a reduction in red cell number, but there is a reduction in hemoglobin, an average of 15% in one study. This results from the antigens released from the eggs. They react with hemoglobin, converting it into an inactive molecule.

A decrease of anything close to this magnitude would definitely show up on the passport, particularly if the values were consistently this low, in test after test. Not just a one-time blip, but a new, lowered baseline. It would be even more suspicious occurring in the absence of a decrease in hematocrit. Normally the two parameters, hemoglobin and hematocrit, are closely correlated.

I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of variation in immune reactions, but again, if hemoglobin levels are in the normal range, it does strongly suggest that antigen levels are not very high, which in turn means immune reactions should not be, either. I'm not sure what other symptoms would have a major impact on performance, unless they were quite serious. Anemia is a common symptom of the disease, and may be caused by factors other than a reduction in hemoglobin. But it most likely would have consequences relevant to the passport, e.g., lowered iron levels.

Quote
"It was only when visiting Kenya that, before a routine UCI blood passport test, Froome asked the doctor to see if he could identify a cause of his mysterious exhaustion and sickness. The Kenyan blood tests proved that Froome was riddled with bilharzia."

The blood analysis was done as a response to Froome's frequent illnesses, not as a response to blood passport value changes

I find this quote ambiguous. If he consulted a doctor during the blood passport test, what exactly did the doctor do? Did s/he run other tests than just look at passport values? Was he qualified to? Did he specifically test for schistosomiasis? And if so, why?

Obviously at some point Froome was tested for the disease, and the diagnosis made. I'm just not clear whether he was tested for it only because he felt ill, or because something came up in the passport. I would have to have more information before being certain about how it happened.

In the meantime, I'm perfectly willing to accept your interpretation that it had nothing to do with passport results, but in that case, it further reinforces that there was no change in his passport while he had the disease. Which again, is not consistent with the usual reduction in hemoglobin.

I just want to add that here is another example of Froome/Sky misinformation, or at least misdirection. They noted that a performance deficit would not be surprising, since the worms feed on red cells. The obvious implication is that there would be a decrease in hematocrit.

You see how they get themselves into trouble? They are the ones not only suggesting that the disease held Froome back from his real potential, but it did so by reducing his oxygen transport. Indeed it could, but it would do so by reduction in hemoglobin, or through other processes leading to anemia, not by reduction in hematocrit. But skipping over that, following their own suggestion, there should have been a change in the passport, yet they're claiming there wasn't. They make multiple claims or suggestions that are inconsistent with each other.

Quote
To be fair, Bilharzia treatment is not the only factor (besides doping) that has been used to explain Froome's rise.

What alternative are you suggesting? Not marginal gains, I hope.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 26, 2013, 23:02
3)   Froome has claimed that following  treatment, he can’t train for about a week because of side effects. Yet it’s widely reported in the literature that the side effects of the drug are minor.

In those places where you read that the side effects are minor, are they talking about top-class athletes?  My point is that the side effects might be minor for an everyday Joe, but they might have a major effect on training at the very top of athletic prowess.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 26, 2013, 23:07
One thing for sure, Froome isn't using extra praziquantel treatments to get a unfair performance advantage!

Somehow, you've missed the fact he's using the parasite to explain how he miraculously transformed from good national guy to grand tour peloton destroyer.

If the guy had lower-ranked results like a Talansky, Uran, or a Quintana, it would be a different discussion.  But he literally transformed himself once signed to Sky.  Does that sound familiar?  It should, because cycling history since EPO has had the same transformations only to later find out it was all doping.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 26, 2013, 23:11
In those places where you read that the side effects are minor, are they talking about top-class athletes?  My point is that the side effects might be minor for an everyday Joe, but they might have a major effect on training at the very top of athletic prowess.

If the guy is on "pan y agua" then maybe he's unlucky and has worse side effects than the norm.  That is possible. 

Maybe there's some unverifiable anatomical anomalies you want to throw in there too.  Let's pretend he's got a really big heart as a result of the parasite.  Or, how about bigger arteries because of the eggs?  Both were popular explanations under another doper.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 26, 2013, 23:42
Let's pretend he's got a really big heart as a result of the parasite.  Or, how about bigger arteries because of the eggs?  Both were popular explanations under another doper.

It's about time we stopped trying to make the Armstrong stories fit Froome. We've had the "Sky ride like USPS therefore they are all doping", and the "Lance said high cadence, like Froome, therefore Froome is doping", etc etc etc etc ad nauseum.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 26, 2013, 23:43
Somehow, you've missed the fact he's using the parasite to explain how he miraculously transformed from good national guy to grand tour peloton destroyer.

If the guy had lower-ranked results like a Talansky, Uran, or a Quintana, it would be a different discussion.  But he literally transformed himself once signed to Sky.  Does that sound familiar?  It should, because cycling history since EPO has had the same transformations only to later find out it was all doping.

Froome's transision compared to early EPO transitions doesn't really compare that well, if you look at the gap in performance on the early stages and the late stages you will notice that the other riders were actually comming closer to Froome's level each day. With a product like EPO the advantage is most outspoken in the end of a GT where the Red Blood cell production would have natually gone down if artificial EPO is not introduced. So as far as manipulating blood in a simular fasion to EPO it doesn't at all fit what happened.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 00:39
Froome's transision compared to early EPO transitions doesn't really compare that well, if you look at the gap in performance on the early stages and the late stages you will notice that the other riders were actually comming closer to Froome's level each day. 

Not true.  First of all Ventoux was stage 15. 2/3rds of the way into the race, after one of the hardest raced Tours in decades (as the average speed suggests and the rider comments from the time themselves)

How on earth is that "everyone coming closer to Froome each day"?  :?

Secondly its not true that other riders  improved relative to Froome unless what you meant to say was that only 2 riders improved relative to Froome - Rodriguez and Quintana?

Because all the other contenders - Contador, Kreuziger, Ten Dam, Mollema, Kwiatkoswski (who was sort of up there at first), Fuglsang,  Dan Martin, actually fell further back.

In fact even after Ventoux his gap to 2nd place was 4.14, moved up to 4.34 on Wednsday, moved further up to 5.11 on the Thursday then fell down to 5.03 on the Saturday.

So he increased his gap by 49 seconds. His gap to Quintana the individual fell by 44 seconds. That's not really the massive drop off your post suggests, even before considering that Froome's main concern was to get through the final week and win the Tour.

Not to mention Froome still won a stage in the final week despite saying he was taking it easy.

Quote
So as far as manipulating blood in a simular fasion to EPO it doesn't at all fit what happened.
If you want to make comparisons do you want to compare to other riders who were 5 minutes up in a gt going into the final week? Because that is a very different scenario than a rider going into the final week needing to go all out on the climbs. Contador 2009 Tour and Contador 2011 Giro for example both eased off in the final mountain stages because he knew he had a huge gap and his aim was to win the race.Hell Contador 2012 vuelta did the same on Bola Del Mundo.


Similarly  Froome's aim was to win the Tour de France not to win the Tour de France by 10 minutes. He said himself his aim for the final week was simply to get through it all safely and he clearly did not give a toss about the time gap because he gave away 50 seconds on the final stage.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: benotti69 on July 27, 2013, 00:50
It's about time we stopped trying to make the Armstrong stories fit Froome. We've had the "Sky ride like USPS therefore they are all doping", and the "Lance said high cadence, like Froome, therefore Froome is doping", etc etc etc etc ad nauseum.

It was Sky who compared themselves to USPS as well. Wiggins talked about seeing the blue train on the front etc etc
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 00:59
We've had the "Sky ride like USPS therefore they are all doping",

Interesting. I haven't seen this one before. Presumably you have since you mention it. Could you point me to some examples of people using it?

Cheers.

Quote
and the "Lance said high cadence, like Froome, therefore Froome is doping",
This one too.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: doolols on July 27, 2013, 01:02
Interesting. I haven't seen this one before. Presumably you have since you mention it. Could you point me to some examples of people using it?

Cheers.
This one too.

I'm surprised you say you haven't seen it. It was all over The Clinic (which I obviously can't link to at the moment). Hence the UK Postal comments. I'm a bit confused. There are a huge number of similarities which people point to, to make the link between Sky and USPS.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: stanground on July 27, 2013, 01:50
The author of the Decoded Science article posted upthread has responded to a question in the comment section about Froome’s 4x praziquantel (PZQ) treatments for his bilharzia.  She said it was not typical to have repeated PZQ treatments, but re-infection and/or improperly administering the medication could be reasons for the ongoing treatments.   So to give Froome the benefit of the doubt, maybe he has been re-infected or he’s screwed up his meds. or he has an unusual resistant strain.  The former two would mean he’s incredibly stupid, the latter would mean he needs a better doctor.  Or maybe not.  Here’s an individual who just won the TdF, an event that demands extraordinary endurance and strength, with chronic schistosomiasis .  It is an impressive achievement.  Almost too good to be true.  Oh wait…
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Arb on July 27, 2013, 02:00
More Team Ground than UK Postal in this year's Tour tbh.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: stanground on July 27, 2013, 02:52
More Team Ground than UK Postal in this year's Tour tbh.

South Park style teamwork?  Froome bonks and Porte yells, “Oh my god, they killed Froomey!”   And then he goes back to the team car to get a gel to save his teammate.....  :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Martin318is on July 27, 2013, 02:54
Interesting. I haven't seen this one before. Presumably you have since you mention it. Could you point me to some examples of people using it.

Are you seriouly claiming you haven't seen any of the USPS 2.0 style comments the internet has been full of for 2 years?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 27, 2013, 06:29
....  Here’s an individual who just won the TdF, an event that demands extraordinary endurance and strength, with chronic schistosomiasis .

It's all good except that part above.  Treatment is a cure for most people. 

Let's say he's 1 in 100,000 and the parasite isn't eradicated.  Test for the presence of mature parasites many weeks later.  Re-do the drug therapy.  Healed!   There are very rare cases of chronic infection, but not in Monaco.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: chmod_775 on July 27, 2013, 06:40
Froome's transision compared to early EPO transitions doesn't really compare that well,
Of course it does.  Barloworld suffering to grand tour domination.  Doping rider who is doping.  Rasmussen ring a bell?

if you look at the gap in performance on the early stages and the late stages you will notice that the other riders were actually comming closer to Froome's level each day.
Actually you'll notice a number of riders speeding up as the race progresses.  Bust Froome and we can move on to the other suspicious factors.

So as far as manipulating blood in a simular fasion to EPO it doesn't at all fit what happened.
This is probably true.  It seems to me EPO use is limited by the bio-passport.   I don't know what it is being used, but we'll find out eventually.  It's not just Sky either.  Just accept Froome is doped and we can move onto the other suspicious performances.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: stanground on July 27, 2013, 08:48
It's all good except that part above.  Treatment is a cure for most people. 

Let's say he's 1 in 100,000 and the parasite isn't eradicated.  Test for the presence of mature parasites many weeks later.  Re-do the drug therapy.  Healed!   There are very rare cases of chronic infection, but not in Monaco.

Sorry, I forgot to insert the rolling eyes emoticon after my statement saying Froome is a top level endurance athlete with chronic schistosomiasis.   His bilharzia story does not make sense to me as he should have been de-wormed and cured ages ago.  I think he probably had a light infection, is cured now and the rest is PR bunk.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 27, 2013, 08:59
In those places where you read that the side effects are minor, are they talking about top-class athletes?  My point is that the side effects might be minor for an everyday Joe, but they might have a major effect on training at the very top of athletic prowess.

This.
From infection to cure.
Major effects on training and the ability to fight other infections.
Has to be factored in.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 27, 2013, 09:41
I can tell you though, that side effects are funny things.  They affect different people differently.

Sometimes the side effects are minor and he might just feel a bit off for a few days after the treatment.  Other people they might affect substantially more.

Froome has said that after treatment he has a week or so off the bike ... so I am guessing his side effects are fairly more than just minor.

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 27, 2013, 10:49
I can tell you though, that side effects are funny things.  They affect different people differently.

Sometimes the side effects are minor and he might just feel a bit off for a few days after the treatment.  Other people they might affect substantially more.

Froome has said that after treatment he has a week or so off the bike ... so I am guessing his side effects are fairly more than just minor.
Agree 100%
Big noise before middle east duty about Leishmania wich is prety much same as Schistosomiasis. Budy of mine got it (as many GI), it is ugly and ended in hospital big time. He is well now.
But I never saw or heard any locals having trouble with it, they just avoid sandfly habitat.
All I want to say if Froome got it....well I lost my point :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Mellow Velo on July 27, 2013, 10:56
I can tell you though, that side effects are funny things.  They affect different people differently.

Sometimes the side effects are minor and he might just feel a bit off for a few days after the treatment.  Other people they might affect substantially more.

Froome has said that after treatment he has a week or so off the bike ... so I am guessing his side effects are fairly more than just minor.

 Yes, once you get the problem sorted, you would expect to be able to begin to complete full training blocks without interruption and not to pick up any more than the normal about of everyday infections.
 I would then expect to see significant gains in performance, from that point.

 As I said, I refer to from infection to cure, whatever the specific dates may be.

 Prior to infection, it's anyone's guess as to what potential level, CF was at.
 So, it's understandable why folks cite CF's results as a marker, although
 I don't see them as definitive, given his somewhat unorthodox background.

 The subject will naturally divide opinion.

 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 11:12
I can tell you though, that side effects are funny things.  They affect different people differently.

Sometimes the side effects are minor and he might just feel a bit off for a few days after the treatment.  Other people they might affect substantially more.

Froome has said that after treatment he has a week or so off the bike ... so I am guessing his side effects are fairly more than just minor.

Correct, AG. When I did my cleanse I was affected, but my sister (who doesn't live as healthy as I do) did much worse, she had to stop and has not tried it since, no matter how often I tell her that she can start on half doses etc to slow down the detoxifying process and make it easier to handle.. no deal.

Anyway, here goes some links to explain this 'parasitic die off effect' - and anybody who's dabbled in natural therapies will know of something referred to as The Healing Crisis where you first get worse before you get better.

Quote
The Herxheimer reaction was first described by an Austrian dermatologist Jarisch Adolf Herxheimer working in Vienna and Innsbruck in 1895..

It is a phenomena that results when there is an intensification of the disease symptoms and often an expansion of similar symptoms to other places all of a temporary nature, after which the patient is improved or well. Often it appears to some as if they have the flu. The symptoms of the Herxheimer Reaction can be most severe. Usually die off lasts only a few hours, though it can last several days, and may, in severe cases, be maintained for weeks. These symptoms can discourage not only the ill person, but also the doctor, therapist, or anyone who is in close relationship to the patient.

The Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction (referred to as "Herx" often) is believed to be a reaction caused by organisms (bacteria) dying off and releasing toxins into the body faster than the body may comfortably handle it. It was originally observed in patients with syphilis who received mercury treatment.

Some immune system compromised or distracted persons will have moderate to severe herxheimer effects from antibiotics that will usually have no effects on normal healthier individuals. It seems to occur when injured or dead bacteria release their products into blood and tissues, provoking a sudden and exaggerated inflammatory response - thus the response may be connected to a specific organism being killed off. Many non-antibiotic treatments (glutathione - whey products ) may also produce a herxheimer effect -- whether it is bacteria die off or simply toxin mobilization.

Symptoms

The most common ones include:

nausea,
headache,
swollen glands,
bloating,
constipation or diarrhea,
increased joint or muscle pain,
elevated heart rate,
chills, cold extremities,
itching, scratching, nail biting,
unusual perspiration,
fever (usually low grade),
hypotension (low blood pressure),
Itching, hives and rash (sometimes assumed to be an allergic reaction)
Symptom intensifiers:

Two common sources: decreasing the blood flow, which allows the toxins to accumulate, or, increasing the die off of parasites.

Two common strategies: improving the blood flow to clear the toxins faster (see vascular constriction), or, neutralizing the toxins (or both).

http://www.earthincommon.com/candida_01-article.html

I also touched on liver health as a factor in my other post, as the liver is the detoxification organ, and I guess if your liver is in good condition you would probably do better, although that's just me guesstimating! (Oh and re the eggs that get lodged in the body, I think my other post also mentioned that the eggs can cause necrosis of the liver, not checking it again now, it's a bit of a mission browsing on the phone at the moment).

They refer to 'toxin mobilisation' in this link - you can release parasites from where they are lodged in the body but they still have a path to follow before they get released out the body - I was advised to take Coriander/Cilantro/Danhia since this helps the body rid itself of the parasites after - I was also warned that my body could get reinfected if I didn't ensure to take something like that. Stuff like infra red saunas too, all mentioned above.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 11:14
Agree 100%
Big noise before middle east duty about Leishmania wich is prety much same as Schistosomiasis. Budy of mine got it (as many GI), it is ugly and ended in hospital big time. He is well now.
But I never saw or heard any locals having trouble with it, they just avoid sandfly habitat.
All I want to say if Froome got it....well I lost my point :D

Interesting! And I'll remember to avoid that sandfly habitat :-P
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 11:26
Here's some more:

Quote
What Is The Herxheimer Reaction?

The Herxheimer Reaction is an immune system reaction to the toxins (endotoxins) that are released when large amounts of pathogens are being killed off, and the body does not eliminate the toxins quickly enough. Simply stated, it is a reaction that occurs when the body is detoxifying and the released toxins either exacerbate the symptoms being treated or create their own symptoms. The important thing to note is that worsening symptoms do not indicate failure of the treatment in question; in fact, usually just the opposite.

A Medical Example

The Herxheimer reaction is caused by the release of toxic chemicals (endotoxins) released from the cell walls of dying bacteria due to effective treatment. The Herxheimer Reaction is well recognized in medical circles and is certainly not confined to the world of natural medicine or supplements.

For example, a recent study report (Feb ’04) on the treatment of Sarcoidosis found that, “. . . without exception, the improving patients are reporting periodic aggravation of their symptoms as an apparent direct response to the antibiotics. In other words, these patients say that their treatment makes them feel much worse before they experience symptom-relief.” The abstract of the study goes on to say, “This phenomenon is known as the Jarisch-Herxheimer Reaction (JHR) and is often referred to informally as Herx. JHR is believed to be caused when injured or dead bacteria release their endotoxins into blood and tissues faster than the body can comfortably handle it. . . . This provokes a sudden and exaggerated inflammatory response . . . . In Sarcoidosis patients, the Herxheimer reaction seems to be a valuable indication that an antibiotic is reaching its target.” In the conclusion, the author states: “In my work with Sarcoidosis patients, it is my experience that recovering MP patients understand and welcome the Herxheimer reactions even when they must endure temporary increased suffering. They accept it as the price that they must pay in order to get well and they even seem to find it gratifying to experience tangible evidence of bacterial elimination."

http://www.silver-colloids.com/Pubs/herxheimer.html
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 11:36
I'm surprised you say you haven't seen it. It was all over The Clinic (which I obviously can't link to at the moment). Hence the UK Postal comments. I'm a bit confused. There are a huge number of similarities which people point to, to make the link between Sky and USPS.

My point was, that neither was used as a singular argument for saying "therefore all of sky dope". The second one isn't even an argument against sky but a rebuttal to the ridiculous comments made by sky that high cadence explains froomes out of this world perfromances. Ridiculous because La showed that high cadence cannot be trusted as an argument for why someone is riding faster than most dopers.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 11:52
As for froomes reaction to pzq, it's possible he has a particularly bad reaction to it which is why I never emphasised it myself as a point. i dont know however if that would be because he is an athlete. Do athletes generally receive far more severe symptoms for any medication? 

Anyway what's worth considering about it is that he displays very unusual symptoms and as a one off that's fine but what's surprising is that absolutely every apect of froomes bilharzia is very unusual. If his blood values didn't change then he's also very unusual because as mi posted 15% reduction in haemoglobin is average and then there is the fact that he has had the disease for what the German doctor suggests is a new record 

But anyway since it's possible that froome may have experience worse reactions to the treatment it's not that important a point.

The other points are a lot harder to explain.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 27, 2013, 12:00
totally agreed Hitch

Its not unlikely that he needed additional treatments, or reacted badly to the drugs ... but given the transformation in his performance pre-drugs to post-infection - its hard to believe that his blood profile doesnt show significant changes.

The thing is I think that Sky isnt or wasnt really expecting this kind of reaction ... so is just playing 'catch up' trying to come up with the next story or the next explanation ...
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 12:08
But anyway since it's possible that froome may have experience worse reactions to the treatment it's not that important a point.

The other points are a lot harder to explain.

Yeah, look, my way of solving a puzzle or tricky question is to take each element and break it down first, making sure I understand it first. Once I've worked through each element I sit and see if all the little pieces of the jigsaw actually do fit together. Some bits are harder, some are easier, and it's a slog, but it does help narrow one's focus down when you start eliminating certain factors. It's kinda fun to challenge the brain to try and make sense of this stuff. But I don't believe I'll get a conclusive answer here, too many variables.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Claudio Cappuccino on July 27, 2013, 12:33
I can tell you though, that side effects are funny things.  They affect different people differently.

Sometimes the side effects are minor and he might just feel a bit off for a few days after the treatment.  Other people they might affect substantially more.

Froome has said that after treatment he has a week or so off the bike ... so I am guessing his side effects are fairly more than just minor.
Good point, everyone reacts differently to certain drugs/medicins. Only the PR spin that has been given to the bilharzia is just strange, to keep it mild.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/25/chris-froome-team-sky-tour-de-france
Quote from: the Guardian
"In terms of that illness, I actually went for a check 10 days ago and found out that I did have to repeat the treatment again," he said. "It means these big pills that basically poison you and kill everything in your stomach and I took that in the last week. I am feeling much better now and hopefully I am in the clear for another six months or so.
That almost sounds like a chemotherapy. Yet he manages to be in tip top shape in Oman three weeks later.

And again 'more or less' confirming he has treatment every six months.

Upthread someone suggested he should get a new doctor, I agree, he did the whole pre - season training and then was found to be again infected? Sloppy doctor.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 27, 2013, 12:48
he has actually likened it to chemotherapy... which makes sense in terms of him saying he needs a week or so off the bike when taking it.

And realistically - if at that point in your season (last year he took it in March) you are too sick to ride your bike for a week, you dont just bounce back in super form.

That is one of my major issues with being able to believe in Chris.   Not that he has/had this infection, not that he has taken or continues to take drugs for it, or has side effects ... I am prepared to take him at his word for all of that.

My issue is - he says the treatment makes him sick enough to not touch his bike - or effectively train at all - for a week.   But then he can come out in tip-tp shape 6 or 8 weeks later.   It takes more than that to build form after being that sick ... whether its from infection or from drug treatments.  Recovery takes effort and form doesnt just come. 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 13:40
I wonder how much of that is potentially his mental state? I mean, if you read my links you'll see they all refer to emotional reactions too - I had them too - you can get a little depressed. Don't know about Froome, but my ex cyclist had quite a fragile disposition from time to time, I had to do a helluva lot of motivating & positive reframing with him.

Sidebar apropos the mental game, I've been getting into golf again recently, and it's fascinating to see it in action there. As some of you might know by now, I studied Hypnotherapy (and I'll still write about it on Nat. Therapies Thread) and let me tell you, the power the mind can have - it's all to do with the central nervous system - the pain centre of your brain. Sounds a bit out there, but not at all. I haven't had an injection at the dentist in years, I control that pain, it was one of the modules I studied - many suffer from fear of the dentist, or react negatively to anesthesia, so need a hypnotherapist to help them. Same goes for women who want to give birth without epidural, it's natural/organic pain control. I'll elaborate on the other thread.

Then you get those guys that swim in Polar waters and survive - think people like South African Mike Horn (not sure, will follow up) - that is self-hypnosis, they control their body functions, slow down their heart rates, etc etc.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: stanground on July 27, 2013, 17:04
he has actually likened it to chemotherapy... which makes sense in terms of him saying he needs a week or so off the bike when taking it.

And realistically - if at that point in your season (last year he took it in March) you are too sick to ride your bike for a week, you dont just bounce back in super form.

That is one of my major issues with being able to believe in Chris.   Not that he has/had this infection, not that he has taken or continues to take drugs for it, or has side effects ... I am prepared to take him at his word for all of that.

My issue is - he says the treatment makes him sick enough to not touch his bike - or effectively train at all - for a week.   But then he can come out in tip-tp shape 6 or 8 weeks later.   It takes more than that to build form after being that sick ... whether its from infection or from drug treatments.  Recovery takes effort and form doesnt just come. 

I think the media reported the treatments were like chemotherapy, not Froome.  As discussed upthread, people who live in high risk areas are sometimes given multiple treatments of PZQ, usually annually, to help prevent the disease.  This is known as as  ‘preventative chemotherapy in human helminthiasis’ (i.e. the large-scale distribution of drugs to populations at risk of parasitical diseases) .  The reporter probably confused a ‘preventative chemotherapy treatment program’ with a ‘treatment program with symptoms like chemotherapy’.  There's so much misinformation in the media about this disease.

Here’s what Michelle Cound said about the treatment:

I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment.  He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.
And yes, he definitely has been struggling with bilharzia... he is due for another test to see if it's cleared his system.

The PZQ side effects were mild nausea and fatigue that kept him off the bike during the course of the meds.  Doesn't sound that serious although for a professional athlete it would affect your training.   


 
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: cathexist on July 27, 2013, 17:42
Apologies, I'm a bit late on this one but I tried to post this a couple of days ago and it didn't work- so some of my points have sort of been addressed, but anyway, here is my take, for what it's worth.

I'm a newcomer to these forums and have enjoyed a number of threads, but the bilharzia discussion on this one has compelled me to comment.  I have no agenda one way or another, but as a rationalist and a lawyer the construction of elaborate claims on the basis of flimsy evidence bugs me.  So.

First, a cursory google of "Praziquantel schistosomiasis cure rates" turns up this first result:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228392-treatment# (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228392-treatment#)

A couple of quotes: "Cure rates of 65-90% have been described after a single treatment with praziquantel."   So, a 10-35% chance of requiring further treatment.  You'd expect Froome to have the best treatment available and so you might assume a 90% chance of a cure in his case.  If that is sufficient evidence for you to conclude Froome and Sky are lying about this then there is little point continuing a debate.  However, to go back to the link:

"Response to treatment is evaluated by counting the amount of decrease in egg excretion. In the initial 2 weeks after treatment, the egg count may not decrease, because eggs laid before the treatment require 2 weeks to be shed. Viable eggs can be excreted for 6-8 weeks after treatment.

When measured 5-10 days after treatment, newer tests that measure antigens may help to assess therapeutic response. Persistent circulating antigen and the excretion of eggs indicate residual infection. These patients should be retreated with praziquantel."


So, plenty of scope for needing a more extended course of treatment than one day (and a possible explanation for those 2 week trips - note, I make no comment on the ability to get treatment in Europe, but I can understand why Froome might wish to go back 'home' for this period, and/or visit the specialist who originally treated him etc.)  Lots of similar references online.

One more quote:

"Follow-up

Antischistosomal drugs inhibit egg-laying by adult worms. Therefore, patients’ stool and urine should be tested for 6 months after treatment. Treatment is repeated for those excreting eggs. If symptoms recur, hematuria occurs, or eosinophilia is noted, repeat parasite investigation should be performed. However, serology can remain positive for years."


Entirely consistent with ongoing 6 monthly checks/treatment.  See also this source: http://www.snp.com.au/media/160501/schistosomiasis.pdf (http://www.snp.com.au/media/160501/schistosomiasis.pdf) which again seems to me credible (and is backed up by this study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00379.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00379.x/full) ) and states:

"Follow-up Schistosomiasis serology is recommended in 12 to 36 months after treatment ... Persisting titres should not automatically justify retreatment, this should be based on symptoms, parasite identification or eosinophilia. Viable eggs may continue to be excreted for up to one month after successful treatment. Non-viable and degenerate eggs can be found in tissue biopsies for years after infection has occurred."

Of course most of what has been discussed relates to acute schistosomiasis.  What if Froome has some chronic issues with the disease?  The assumption has been that he can't do, because chronic problems involve some sort of semi-permanant organ damage, but that doesn't appear to be the case.  From this source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228392-overview#aw2aab6b2b5aa (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228392-overview#aw2aab6b2b5aa)

Chronic schistosomiasis

Most patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and do not require medical attention. Only a small proportion of an endemic population harbors a heavy worm burden that later leads to clinical complications.


So, Froome could be one of those mildly asymptotic patients, with issues that would not affect a normal person but would a professional cyclist given the demands on the body.  Or he could be one of those with a heavy worm burden.  Or maybe he's somewhere in between and they caught it early enough to prevent serious organ damage, but it requires ongoing treatment.
Now I don't know, but neither does anybody else here.  It's plausible though, that's my point.

And all of this focus on haemoglobin.  It has been assumed that this is always a symptom of schistosomiasis for all patients at all stages and for whatever level of infection.  There was one study linked to in the clinic, but that is hardly determinative (and even that showed limited effects when infection rates were low).  By way of a counter example, see this link, in relation to chronic schistosomiasis: http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/809/treatment/step-by-step.html (http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/809/treatment/step-by-step.html) :

"Chronic schistosomiasis (years after exposure): In chronic disease, most symptoms result from the host immune response to Schistosoma eggs."

It seems as if Froome's issues were years after exposure, in which case it may not be the adult worms (which feed on RBCs and, I presume, are the primary reason for reduced Hgb) that are the primary problem but the immune response to the eggs.  See here for a list of symptoms: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Symptoms.aspx (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Symptoms.aspx) which includes the following quotation:

"Chronic schistosomiasis
If schistosomiasis is not treated, the parasites remain in your body and will go on to cause further symptoms. It may damage your organs or the eggs can cause an allergic reaction as your immune system continues, but fails, to kill the parasites.

The symptoms of chronic schistosomiasis depend on where in the body the parasites have travelled too.

If the parasites travel to the digestive system, they can cause the following symptoms:

feeling tired all the time (fatigue)
abdominal pain
watery diarrhoea that contains blood and mucus


It goes on, feel free to review the rest of the link.  All in all, hardly fatal, but pretty debilitating for a pro cyclist.  Now, I'm not claiming these sources are definitive (although they are credible and consistent with a number of other sources, again feel free to google).  Neither am I claiming that Froome is not doping, but really, this seems to me to be the weakest argument against him and in fact there is plenty of evidence out there which is broadly consistent with the picture he and Sky have painted.  Okay, there are certainly inconsistencies in various interviews (and the reporting has been awful, but that can't all be levelled at Froome or Sky) but that's about it.

Two final points, the first related to the point above.  Has anybody mentioned leukocytes?  The clinic study (can't seem to find it now, apologies) shows that bilharzia affects haemoglobin (albeit not RBCs) and leukocytes.  So, a weakened immune system.  Entirely consistent with reports of extended infections etc. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukopenia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukopenia) ), which might explain performance inconsistencies even though other blood counts appeared normal. 

Also.  Yes, you MAY expect haemoglobin levels to change as a result of bilharzia (though not necessarily- see above- what if Froome's schistosomiasis is chronic, and only mildly symptomatic, then he'd have no few adult worms eating his RBCs, just immune responses to the eggs).  But even allowing for the fact that Froome's blood values might have been affected, the amount of reliance being placed on one quote by Freeman is excessive.  Clearly Froome's blood values did change, they couldn't have remained identical, values change all the time- see any biopassport data available online.  Clearly therefore Freeman (speaking from memory about a general impression) meant something else, perhaps 'they did not change excessively/alarmingly/inexplicably' or perhaps 'they did not change in a way that would effect performance'.  I think the former is the most likely, given he follows up the quote with: "it wasn’t down to him doing things he shouldn’t have done".  So he could have been focussing particularly on things like reticulocyte percentages which are an indicator of blood doping.  In any event, this quotation, for me, leaves room for some mild bilharzia-related Hgb fluctuations and, in particular, leukocyte variations which could affect health and recovery and which may not even be visible in the data (leukocytes are not, for example, a marker considered as part of the bio passport haematological module- again, this info is out there, google and you shall find).

Finally.  I think given the above it is plausible (not certain) that bilharzia could explain Froome's poor or inconsistent performances prior to diagnosis/successful treatment.  Does anybody disagree?  (Note, I'm not saying it couldn't also be a convenient cover, just that it is a plausible explanation).

If you do disagree with this please tell me why.

If not, then what are we left with?

Yes, it's a plausible explanation, but I choose to believe Sky are lying about it because of Froome/Sky's performance etc. etc.  Fine, if that's the way you want to think about things (there's another debate to be had about performance though).  To me, Sky lying about it is less plausible, but I haven't the energy to go into my basis for that judgement now.

Bilharzia treatments as a cover for doping?  That seems to me to be lacking in any credibility.  Can anyone explain to me how Froome's bilharzia treatments might actually have helped him dope?  We know he has no TUE for corticoids, or indeed anything else currently.  We know he was treated earlier this year (January?) and is scheduled for a further check up after the Tour.  How does that help explain Ventoux or Ax 3?  If the trips abroad or the treatments themselves were in any way a cover for doping, why would they schedule them at these unhelpful times?

Bilharzia as a way to set up an artificial baseline for biopassport levels thereby facilitating blood doping?  Possible- I don't know enough about this and I can't find any WADA guidelines specifically relating to this issue, but from what I have read I seriously doubt the system is susceptible to such manipulation.

To me, therefore, beyond inconsistencies in interviews and the fact that treatments for acute infection (IF that's what he has been suffering from) are up to 90% successful first time round, there is no evidence that the Bilharzia story is (1) false, (2) not a plausible explanation for poor or inconsistent performances prior to successful treatment or (3) a cover for doping.

If anybody has any further evidence I'd love to see it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 27, 2013, 18:26
Cathexist, nice post!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 27, 2013, 20:18
How on earth is that "everyone coming closer to Froome each day"?  :?

I was stating they were coming closer to his level, if Froome wins by 2 minutes in one stage and wins by 1 the next on comparable mountains then the gap is closing, he is still dominating but the gap is closing. I think that is a clear cut indication that team Sky doesn't have any blood boosting advantage to other teams. Or don't dope during races which could lead to passport trouble. Had froome artificially kept his blood values high and others hadn't then he should have been the most dominant in week 3. Froome's best day was Aix 3 from their his superiority decline though almost to the end prevailed.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 27, 2013, 20:30
Jesus CATHEXIST :D
Dim 10000 words per post limit now!
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: mew on July 27, 2013, 20:36
Jesus CATHEXIST :D
Dim 10000 words per post limit now!

:D
I'm not coming to this thread anymore!

I don't need to think about stool samples from Froome
:fp
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 27, 2013, 20:46
:D
I'm not coming to this thread anymore!

I don't need to think about stool samples from Froome
:fp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIAnkrPgTvY :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 20:54
I was stating they were coming closer to his level, if Froome wins by 2 minutes in one stage and wins by 1 the next on comparable mountains then the gap is closing, he is still dominating but the gap is closing. I think that is a clear cut indication that team Sky doesn't have any blood boosting advantage to other teams. Or don't dope during races which could lead to passport trouble. Had froome artificially kept his blood values high and others hadn't then he should have been the most dominant in week 3. Froome's best day was Aix 3 from their his superiority decline though almost to the end prevailed.

Again where did you get the idea that the gaps closed?

Purito and Quintana came closer, but they are just 2 riders. Everyone who was in the top 10 on Ax 3 Domainx apart from Quintana (9th) lost more time to Chris Froome  on the last mountain stage than they did on the first one.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Merckx Index on July 27, 2013, 21:05
Quote
Quote from: Michelle on October 18, 2012, 13:06
I don't know where you got that rubbish about bilharzia treatment being comparable to chemo?!?
I was with Chris when he took the 7-day (NOT 6 week) course of medication (immediately following Criterium International) & while there was some mild nausea & fatigue it certainly wasn't anything like a chemo treatment.  He obviously wasn't able to ride while taking the medication.

Really? Mild nausea and fatigue, and you can’t ride? I’ve ridden under those conditions many times. Also, most sources say that the treatment is one day, not one week.

And there is this from one of the links provided by Cathexist:

Symptoms “are usually mild and last about 24 hours. These are reactions from dying worms.” As I said before, there is an immune reaction to substances released by the dead worms, but it doesn’t last very long.

Now on to Cathexist:

Quote
"Cure rates of 65-90% have been described after a single treatment with praziquantel."   So, a 10-35% chance of requiring further treatment.

Did you see the following sentence: “In individuals not cured, the drug causes egg excretion to be reduced by 90%.” Why is egg excretion drastically reduced? Because there are fewer eggs. Why are there fewer eggs? Because even in individuals who are “not cured”, the drug greatly reduces the amount of eggs laid. IOW, it has a highly beneficial effect even in these individuals. These individuals might require a second treatment, but even before they have it, they are going to be much better off.

Quote
"Response to treatment is evaluated by counting the amount of decrease in egg excretion. In the initial 2 weeks after treatment, the egg count may not decrease, because eggs laid before the treatment require 2 weeks to be shed. Viable eggs can be excreted for 6-8 weeks after treatment.

When measured 5-10 days after treatment, newer tests that measure antigens may help to assess therapeutic response. Persistent circulating antigen and the excretion of eggs indicate residual infection. These patients should be retreated with praziquantel."

So, plenty of scope for needing a more extended course of treatment than one day (and a possible explanation for those 2 week trips - note, I make no comment on the ability to get treatment in Europe, but I can understand why Froome might wish to go back 'home' for this period, and/or visit the specialist who originally treated him etc.)  Lots of similar references online.

Yes, as has been noted before, some individuals may need a second treatment. But again, what Froome is claiming is he must be treated every six months indefinitely. Not just a second time to get any worms that weren’t eradicated on the first treatment. Find me a link that says individuals must be treated multiple times every six months with prazi and I will pay attention.

And this quote does not do it:

Quote
"Follow-up

Antischistosomal drugs inhibit egg-laying by adult worms. Therefore, patients’ stool and urine should be tested for 6 months after treatment. Treatment is repeated for those excreting eggs. If symptoms recur, hematuria occurs, or eosinophilia is noted, repeat parasite investigation should be performed. However, serology can remain positive for years."

This passage is saying that the patient should be followed closely during the six months following treatment, to ensure that egg excretion eventually falls off. If it doesn't, or if there are other indicators, a second treatment might be necessary. As pointed out above, even at this point, the patient will be well on the way to recovery, one is only looking to make sure that all the worms are eradicated.

Nor this quote:

Quote
Entirely consistent with ongoing 6 monthly checks/treatment.  See also this source: http://www.snp.com.au/media/160501/schistosomiasis.pdf which again seems to me credible (and is backed up by this study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2009.00379.x/full ) and states:

"Follow-up Schistosomiasis serology is recommended in 12 to 36 months after treatment ... Persisting titres should not automatically justify retreatment, this should be based on symptoms, parasite identification or eosinophilia. Viable eggs may continue to be excreted for up to one month after successful treatment. Non-viable and degenerate eggs can be found in tissue biopsies for years after infection has occurred."

This basically reiterates the message of the previous quote, except that follow-up can take place after a longer period of time.

Quote
Most patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and do not require medical attention. Only a small proportion of an endemic population harbors a heavy worm burden that later leads to clinical complications.

So, Froome could be one of those mildly asymptotic patients, with issues that would not affect a normal person but would a professional cyclist given the demands on the body.  Or he could be one of those with a heavy worm burden.  Or maybe he's somewhere in between and they caught it early enough to prevent serious organ damage, but it requires ongoing treatment.

Do you understand what an endemic population is? The quote is referring to people who live in an area where the parasites are prevalent, and thus where not only are large numbers of people are infected, but reinfected following treatment. When the passage says most people have no or mild symptoms, it refers to people that are infected and have not been treated. The point is, many people infected with the worms have such mild symptoms that they don’t need treatment. It does not refer to people who have been treated, as Froome has, or who have not been reinfected, as we can be quite sure Froome hasn’t. IOW, it is not referring to some chronic form of the disease present in people who have been treated for it.

Quote
And all of this focus on haemoglobin.  It has been assumed that this is always a symptom of schistosomiasis for all patients at all stages and for whatever level of infection.  There was one study linked to in the clinic, but that is hardly determinative (and even that showed limited effects when infection rates were low).  By way of a counter example, see this link, in relation to chronic schistosomiasis: http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/809/treatment/step-by-step.html :

"Chronic schistosomiasis (years after exposure): In chronic disease, most symptoms result from the host immune response to Schistosoma eggs."

It seems as if Froome's issues were years after exposure, in which case it may not be the adult worms (which feed on RBCs and, I presume, are the primary reason for reduced Hgb) that are the primary problem but the immune response to the eggs.

Obviously you didn’t read much of this thread. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but the adult worms are NOT responsible for the reduced hemoglobin. The eggs are. Reduced hemoglobin is one of many symptoms that results from egg antigens.

Quote
See here for a list of symptoms: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/schistosomiasis/Pages/Symptoms.aspx which includes the following quotation:

"Chronic schistosomiasis
If schistosomiasis is not treated, the parasites remain in your body and will go on to cause further symptoms. It may damage your organs or the eggs can cause an allergic reaction as your immune system continues, but fails, to kill the parasites.

The symptoms of chronic schistosomiasis depend on where in the body the parasites have travelled too.

If the parasites travel to the digestive system, they can cause the following symptoms:

feeling tired all the time (fatigue)
abdominal pain
watery diarrhoea that contains blood and mucus

You don’t seem to understand how much this quote damages Froome’s case. It’s a description of what happens if you are not treated. Froome thinks he had the disease at least a year before treatment. Yet it did not affect his performance compared to before he had the disease to any extent that he was aware of.  Again, I made this point in an earlier post.

Quote
Two final points, the first related to the point above.  Has anybody mentioned leukocytes?  The clinic study (can't seem to find it now, apologies) shows that bilharzia affects haemoglobin (albeit not RBCs) and leukocytes.  So, a weakened immune system.  Entirely consistent with reports of extended infections etc. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukopenia ), which might explain performance inconsistencies even though other blood counts appeared normal.

As discussed before, there are other effects of the disease that might impact performance. But most of these effects ultimately result from the eggs, and if there are enough eggs to cause serious symptoms of this kind, one would also expect a significant reduction in hemoglobin. 

Quote
Also.  Yes, you MAY expect haemoglobin levels to change as a result of bilharzia (though not necessarily- see above- what if Froome's schistosomiasis is chronic, and only mildly symptomatic, then he'd have no few adult worms eating his RBCs, just immune responses to the eggs).  But even allowing for the fact that Froome's blood values might have been affected, the amount of reliance being placed on one quote by Freeman is excessive.  Clearly Froome's blood values did change, they couldn't have remained identical, values change all the time- see any biopassport data available online.  Clearly therefore Freeman (speaking from memory about a general impression) meant something else, perhaps 'they did not change excessively/alarmingly/inexplicably' or perhaps 'they did not change in a way that would effect performance'.  I think the former is the most likely, given he follows up the quote with: "it wasn’t down to him doing things he shouldn’t have done".  So he could have been focussing particularly on things like reticulocyte percentages which are an indicator of blood doping.  In any event, this quotation, for me, leaves room for some mild bilharzia-related Hgb fluctuations and, in particular, leukocyte variations which could affect health and recovery and which may not even be visible in the data (leukocytes are not, for example, a marker considered as part of the bio passport haematological module- again, this info is out there, google and you shall find).

I can only repeat that a 15% decrease in hemoglobin would definitely be detected in the passport. Especially as it would not be a “fluctuation” but a new baseline. Of course, his hemoglobin may not have decreased much at all. But if that’s the case, then any affects on blood are unlikely to have impacted his performance much.

Quote
Finally.  I think given the above it is plausible (not certain) that bilharzia could explain Froome's poor or inconsistent performances prior to diagnosis/successful treatment.  Does anybody disagree? 

Yes, I disagree, for the reasons I have discussed extensively. Even if one wants to hypothesize that Froome suffered from symptoms that did not affect his blood values, this does not explain why there was no detriment in performance after he got the disease. The emphasis is on how he got much better after treatment, but the logical corollary is that he should have become much worse after he got the disease. Beyond this, I still have not seen anything in the literature about multiple, indefinite prazi treatments. A doctor quoted upthread admitted that only reinfection or improper administration, both of which are extremely unlikely, could require this.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 27, 2013, 21:33
(http://i1319.photobucket.com/albums/t666/Denis328/17616_10151708311938427_804044828_n_zpsd87819e0.jpg) (http://s1319.photobucket.com/user/Denis328/media/17616_10151708311938427_804044828_n_zpsd87819e0.jpg.html)
 :D
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 27, 2013, 21:43
Again where did you get the idea that the gaps closed?

Purito and Quintana came closer, but they are just 2 riders. Everyone who was in the top 10 on Ax 3 Domainx apart from Quintana (9th) lost more time to Chris Froome  on the last mountain stage than they did on the first one.

Could include Valverde in those as well, and apart from Contador, Valverde, Purito and Quintana were really the only ones that I even saw mentioned as real options for winning the tour, all respect to Molema, Ten Dam, Fuglsang and those guys but one would not have said they would be at a level where they could win a GT.

I just don't see the basis from the way it turned out to argue that team Sky is on some next level blood boosting doping. when it doesn't fit the progression, if they are then what would Quintana, Valverde and Purito have to be on, I jus don't see it. If anything I think what is really suspecious is how skinny Froome has managed to get, while still being able to almost beat Tony Martin on a flat ITT.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 27, 2013, 21:47

I just don't see the basis from the way it turned out to argue that team Sky is on some next level blood boosting doping. when it doesn't fit the progression,

But who said that?  The idea of Froome doping isn't contingent on Blood doping, nor on team wide doping, nor on him neccesarily having any doping advantage over his competition.

BTW, and this is just a hypothetical, but if hypothetically someone was aon a blood boosting programme and going into the 3rd week they had a 5 minute advantage on gc, wouldn't they naturally ease off the blood doping?

Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 27, 2013, 21:49
(http://i1319.photobucket.com/albums/t666/Denis328/17616_10151708311938427_804044828_n_zpsd87819e0.jpg) (http://s1319.photobucket.com/user/Denis328/media/17616_10151708311938427_804044828_n_zpsd87819e0.jpg.html)
 :D

I hated when that happened, honestly how Froome didn't get a some time taken away from that was silly, it was a clear cut violation, and the anouncers on radio tour was even yelling at sky when they handed the food out so, team sky had a chance to tell Porte to throw the food away. I can't get mad at Froome for taking the food however, he was melting down, and can't be expected to think of rules like where to get food. As far as the team giving it, I really dislike it. To me that was cheating regardless of why they did it, and I will have a hard time as thinking of team sky as anything but cheaters because of it.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 27, 2013, 21:59
But who said that?
Just general statements made about team Sky and Froome, I'm sure I could find lots of examples going through the posts in this thread, and the Sky thread, the main thing my argument was about right from the start is not as much "Is Froome or isn't Froome doping" but more a reflection over the thought that I've heard a lot that team Sky has some sort of edge.

BTW, and this is just a hypothetical, but if hypothetically someone was aon a blood boosting programme and going into the 3rd week they had a 5 minute advantage on gc, wouldn't they naturally ease off the blood doping?

Maybe, I suppose it would depend on how safe they felt, and as they wouldn't even allow a Rodgers who was 15 minutes back to ride of on the third to last day, I don't know if they would. Even more so if those who believe Froome is doping and had no talent before that were right, he could easily be spilled on every mountain finish if that was the case. Also how does it affect the passport, if you doped through in all other races, a big drop would look strange. And using the product might just be the best way of destroying some evidence.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: l29205 on July 27, 2013, 22:16
I hated when that happened, honestly how Froome didn't get a some time taken away from that was silly, it was a clear cut violation, and the anouncers on radio tour was even yelling at sky when they handed the food out so, team sky had a chance to tell Porte to throw the food away. I can't get mad at Froome for taking the food however, he was melting down, and can't be expected to think of rules like where to get food. As far as the team giving it, I really dislike it. To me that was cheating regardless of why they did it, and I will have a hard time as thinking of team sky as anything but cheaters because of it.

I can get mad, they knew the rules and broke them.  Froome benefited and should have been punished.  Or maybe the whole of the team should have been.  From a bunch of cheaters standpoint, that is a little much they took a risk at breaking a rule with a known punishment.  It seems to me more of a calculated risk of lose more time due to a bonk or loss time due to a penalty.  Froome still should have been penalized in my opinion.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 27, 2013, 22:39
I hated when that happened, honestly how Froome didn't get a some time taken away from that was silly, it was a clear cut violation, and the anouncers on radio tour was even yelling at sky when they handed the food out so, team sky had a chance to tell Porte to throw the food away. I can't get mad at Froome for taking the food however, he was melting down, and can't be expected to think of rules like where to get food. As far as the team giving it, I really dislike it. To me that was cheating regardless of why they did it, and I will have a hard time as thinking of team sky as anything but cheaters because of it.
What was wrong with that? I dont get it. Team Sky car broke, Porte bring food, Froome eated. What goes wrong?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: AG on July 28, 2013, 01:16
Really? Mild nausea and fatigue, and you can’t ride? I’ve ridden under those conditions many times. Also, most sources say that the treatment is one day, not one week.

And there is this from one of the links provided by Cathexist:

Symptoms “are usually mild and last about 24 hours. These are reactions from dying worms.” As I said before, there is an immune reaction to substances released by the dead worms, but it doesn’t last very long.

Now on to Cathexist:

Did you see the following sentence: “In individuals not cured, the drug causes egg excretion to be reduced by 90%.” Why is egg excretion drastically reduced? Because there are fewer eggs. Why are there fewer eggs? Because even in individuals who are “not cured”, the drug greatly reduces the amount of eggs laid. IOW, it has a highly beneficial effect even in these individuals. These individuals might require a second treatment, but even before they have it, they are going to be much better off.

Yes, as has been noted before, some individuals may need a second treatment. But again, what Froome is claiming is he must be treated every six months indefinitely. Not just a second time to get any worms that weren’t eradicated on the first treatment. Find me a link that says individuals must be treated multiple times every six months with prazi and I will pay attention.

And this quote does not do it:

This passage is saying that the patient should be followed closely during the six months following treatment, to ensure that egg excretion eventually falls off. If it doesn't, or if there are other indicators, a second treatment might be necessary. As pointed out above, even at this point, the patient will be well on the way to recovery, one is only looking to make sure that all the worms are eradicated.

Nor this quote:

This basically reiterates the message of the previous quote, except that follow-up can take place after a longer period of time.

Do you understand what an endemic population is? The quote is referring to people who live in an area where the parasites are prevalent, and thus where not only are large numbers of people are infected, but reinfected following treatment. When the passage says most people have no or mild symptoms, it refers to people that are infected and have not been treated. The point is, many people infected with the worms have such mild symptoms that they don’t need treatment. It does not refer to people who have been treated, as Froome has, or who have not been reinfected, as we can be quite sure Froome hasn’t. IOW, it is not referring to some chronic form of the disease present in people who have been treated for it.

Obviously you didn’t read much of this thread. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but the adult worms are NOT responsible for the reduced hemoglobin. The eggs are. Reduced hemoglobin is one of many symptoms that results from egg antigens.

You don’t seem to understand how much this quote damages Froome’s case. It’s a description of what happens if you are not treated. Froome thinks he had the disease at least a year before treatment. Yet it did not affect his performance compared to before he had the disease to any extent that he was aware of.  Again, I made this point in an earlier post.

As discussed before, there are other effects of the disease that might impact performance. But most of these effects ultimately result from the eggs, and if there are enough eggs to cause serious symptoms of this kind, one would also expect a significant reduction in hemoglobin. 

I can only repeat that a 15% decrease in hemoglobin would definitely be detected in the passport. Especially as it would not be a “fluctuation” but a new baseline. Of course, his hemoglobin may not have decreased much at all. But if that’s the case, then any affects on blood are unlikely to have impacted his performance much.

Yes, I disagree, for the reasons I have discussed extensively. Even if one wants to hypothesize that Froome suffered from symptoms that did not affect his blood values, this does not explain why there was no detriment in performance after he got the disease. The emphasis is on how he got much better after treatment, but the logical corollary is that he should have become much worse after he got the disease. Beyond this, I still have not seen anything in the literature about multiple, indefinite prazi treatments. A doctor quoted upthread admitted that only reinfection or improper administration, both of which are extremely unlikely, could require this.


Moderator Comment Mercx Index - while we appreciate your input - that kind of aggression isnt necessary. Take it down a notch. Thanks
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Eric on July 28, 2013, 06:09
I hated when that happened, honestly how Froome didn't get a some time taken away from that was silly, it was a clear cut violation, and the anouncers on radio tour was even yelling at sky when they handed the food out so, team sky had a chance to tell Porte to throw the food away. I can't get mad at Froome for taking the food however, he was melting down, and can't be expected to think of rules like where to get food. As far as the team giving it, I really dislike it. To me that was cheating regardless of why they did it, and I will have a hard time as thinking of team sky as anything but cheaters because of it.

Agreed. What that did is allow us to legitimately state that Froome cheated during the 2013 Tour. It's undeniable, even the most ardent of Froome fans must concede that he cheated and hence his achievements have been sullied. If he didn't take that food who knows, he could have lost 2 or 3 minutes. Maybe he could have had an Evans Giro style crack and lost 20 minutes. In the end, that was the decisive moment. And it was fraudulent.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: DB-Coop on July 28, 2013, 07:12
What was wrong with that? I dont get it. Team Sky car broke, Porte bring food, Froome eated. What goes wrong?

Because they can't give him stuff that late, the whole using the Sky car breakdown as an argument revolves around the belief that he would have got food if that wasn't the case, however if they knew the car had broken down why wouldn't they pick up something from neutral service if they knew they would end up needing it? If they really wanted it to go well they should at least have checked it off with a comisionaire first.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Anthony Moan on July 28, 2013, 07:48
Because they can't give him stuff that late, the whole using the Sky car breakdown as an argument revolves around the belief that he would have got food if that wasn't the case, however if they knew the car had broken down why wouldn't they pick up something from neutral service if they knew they would end up needing it? If they really wanted it to go well they should at least have checked it off with a comisionaire first.
I see, thanks :niceday
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: wwabbit on July 28, 2013, 08:20
Agreed. What that did is allow us to legitimately state that Froome cheated during the 2013 Tour. It's undeniable, even the most ardent of Froome fans must concede that he cheated and hence his achievements have been sullied. If he didn't take that food who knows, he could have lost 2 or 3 minutes. Maybe he could have had an Evans Giro style crack and lost 20 minutes. In the end, that was the decisive moment. And it was fraudulent.

Not really.
Looking around, it is pretty evident that the only people thinking this way are a very vocal minority posting in forums. Everyone else that matters - the rival teams, the peloton, organizers, journalists, rational fans don't see an issue with it at all.

The 20km rule came out because riders were abusing the chance to feed to get an advantage through drafting of the team cars and holding on to 'sticky bottles'. The purpose was not to force riders to bonk or dehydrate if they were not able to feed before the 20km point - doing so can be pretty dangerous. In the case of Sky, they had a legitimate reason not to be able to feed before the 20km (extended to 6km) point, and they obviously did not abuse the feed to get an unfair advantage.

The 20 second penalty is specified in the rulebook and has been consistently applied to similar cases before. Obviously, it is the right amount of penalty that will discourage drafting and sticky bottles but allows riders to get the feed anyway if they really need it. Sky may have successfully appealed against the penalty due to the circumstances, but Froome chose not to.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: kabloemski on July 28, 2013, 08:32
I can get mad, they knew the rules and broke them.  Froome benefited and should have been punished.  Or maybe the whole of the team should have been.  From a bunch of cheaters standpoint, that is a little much they took a risk at breaking a rule with a known punishment.  It seems to me more of a calculated risk of lose more time due to a bonk or loss time due to a penalty.  Froome still should have been penalized in my opinion.

Agree.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: Martin318is on July 28, 2013, 08:35
.

BTW, and this is just a hypothetical, but if hypothetically someone was aon a blood boosting programme and going into the 3rd week they had a 5 minute advantage on gc, wouldn't they naturally ease off the blood doping?

Doubt that would be the case but what WOULD happen is they wouldn't try to put more time into opponents.  If leading by 5 mins the focus would be to maintain the gap not extend it dramatically.

Therefore arguments comparing final week to first week in this tour in particular are flawed
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: The Hitch on July 28, 2013, 12:36
Sky may have successfully appealed against the penalty due to the circumstances, but Froome chose not to.

You are romanticising Froome a incy wincy bit there. As I recall Froome did not react to the incident admirably.  In the first interview he laughably claimed that the feed did not help him in the slightest (then why take it?) and angrily claimed to have done nothing wrong. In future interviews he said it could have cost him a lot of time so it was better to take it.

However I don't think the feed mattered much,  Froome would not have lost 5 minutes in 2k so it didn't impact the results. But still, Froome showed his character.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: oitallefotua on July 28, 2013, 16:37
Not really.
Looking around, it is pretty evident that the only people thinking this way are a very vocal minority posting in forums. Everyone else that matters - the rival teams, the peloton, organizers, journalists, rational fans don't see an issue with it at all.

Are you calling everyone who disagree with you irrational?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 28, 2013, 16:51
Are you calling everyone who disagree with you irrational?

Let's not get into that, shall we?

Rules were broken, individuals were fined. Froome broke the rules. That is the point.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: oitallefotua on July 28, 2013, 16:54
Let's not get into that, shall we?

Rules were broken, individuals were fined. Froome broke the rules. That is the point.

So it's okay to imply that others are irrational, but not to tell them that they do?
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: L'arri on July 28, 2013, 17:05
So it's okay to imply that others are irrational, but not to tell them that they do?

I am trying to avoid this escalating and getting off topic. I say Froome cheated but he paid the price according to race judges. It doesn't bother me if others say that's irrational. It happened and he was never going to get thrown out of the Tour for a couple of gels. It was calculated and there's little value in arguing what other outcomes were possible on the road.
Title: Re: Chris Froome
Post by: oitallefotua on July 28, 2013, 17:11
I am trying to avoid this escalating and getting off topic. I say Froome cheated but he paid the price according to race judges. It doesn't bother me if others say that's irrational. It happened and he was never going to get thrown out of the Tour for a couple of gels. It was calculated and there's little value in arguing what other outcomes were possible on the road.

It's just that I'm new here, and want to learn what is tolerated. Apparently it's okay to throw the first stone, but not the second. :-(