collapse


LukasCPH

  • World Champion
  • *
  • Country: de
  • Posts: 11864
  • Liked: 7716
    • lukascph.media
  • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
Re: Chris Froome
« Reply #2760 on: July 05, 2018, 21:36 »
Moderator Comment Since there's no point in giving a forum to the crazy wishes/threats made elsewhere, a couple of posts about that have been removed.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean

    pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1119
    • Liked: 665
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2761 on: July 06, 2018, 06:39 »
    Since there's no point in giving a forum to the crazy wishes/threats made elsewhere, a couple of posts about that have been removed.

    yup, sorry my fault :P
  • ReplyReply

  • riding too slowly

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 307
    • Liked: 308
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2762 on: July 06, 2018, 17:17 »



    "Froome increased his normal low dosage to a higher but still legal number of puffs to combat worsening symptoms"
    What is the proof for that? Just what Froome's team of lawyers tells us?

    "he was being treated for an infection"
    Ahh, a nice legal dose of corticosteroids as well

    "And then there was the physiological impact of the event and other factors, such as dietary supplements and so on"
    And this was different from others days how exactly??

    "Dr Rabin said people were underestimating how many of these cases occur every year without anyone knowing about them, as was meant to happen in this case, too."
    Well, that's reassuring

    I still can't wrap my head around this. He is absolved simply because replication of the circumstances is improbable. Even though the odds of delivering a sample above the max limit while staying within the allowed dosage are slight. Isn't the onus of proof on the athlete in sports? What happened to guilty until proven innocent? Did Froome and his team try everything in their power to replicate the circumstances as best as they could in a pharmacokinetic study? I think not.

    Just burn the entire book of regulations already, if the rules apparently aren't going to be followed anyway.

    10$ says he has been in this position many times before which is why he was so confident he was going to get off.

    Yes, I feel your suffering, Flo.  Believe me, I have been there.

    As hellish painful as reading some (a lot?)  of my posts are, I am enjoying my moment when I can hear the four words Gore Vidal stated were the most beautiful in the English language.  I refer you to my post 2501.

    Them rules are only for following when they want to.  The shysters are still in control and Sir Dave Brasilford Michele and the Dawg know nothing has changed in the Admin of the sport since Lance was sending the UCI $100,000 cheques for something neither he or Verbruggen could remember what it was, let alone find a receipt.

    The leak did not come from Sky.  And it did not come from Cookson.  Brailsford, Michele and Froome knew where the leak was from and that is why Froome didn't back off like a scalded kid and go and sit in a corner whilst the grown-ups decided on his punishment.  He had been dealt the ace of the trump suit and was gauranteed to win the only trick that mattered - the last one.

    Again I am in awe of the way Cound and Froome have outplayed those around them with a deep respect born of a nearly fathomless cynicsm. 

    The test data is a smokescreen, something for people who love the sport to focus on.  Something for the inept administrators of the sport to point out and say - "we would love to, if only ................" 

    (Like hell they would !  If it wasn't "X" they would find "Y" to be an unfortunate but insurmountable obstacle.)

    I think Landis did damage the sport but I am loving his quote from his interview with Ewan MacKenna "There is nothing anyone can say or do to harm cycling because it is a giant pile of sh*t. You can't make it any worse so if they want to accuse me of harming something that has no value, they can f*** straight off.” 
  • ReplyReply

  • Claudio Cappuccino

    • National Champion
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 924
    • Liked: 789
    • Venga! Venga! Venga!
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2763 on: July 06, 2018, 18:13 »
    Yes, it is a cover up. The eventual truth will come out someday.

    Did anyone expect something different?

    This was a clear warning for Froome not to overdo his shenanigans.

    I hope he goes for the triple this year though. Just to pee everyone off, He is untouchable till that time.

    Too big to fall.

    WADA confirmed, the are known pussies.
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3141
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2764 on: July 07, 2018, 23:39 »
    ....file under I wish I had thought of this ( courtesy of poster Pantani_lives from a forum far far way...)....short,sweet,dead nuts on...what's not to like eh...

     Team Skybutamol

    Cheers
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 00:01 by blutto »

    Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2715
    • Liked: 3247
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2765 on: July 08, 2018, 10:30 »
     Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.

    AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6630
    • Liked: 4078
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2766 on: July 08, 2018, 10:56 »
    sounds like their are 30 more guys who will have an action against WADA / UCI soon

    what a mess
  • ReplyReply

  • Claudio Cappuccino

    • National Champion
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 924
    • Liked: 789
    • Venga! Venga! Venga!
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2767 on: July 08, 2018, 11:35 »
    Yeah
    Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.
    We dont know those circumstances, as we dont know Froomey's. Pretty unusefull I might say.

    I bet Froomey and SKy will show how transparent they actually are and release everything concerning?
  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2715
    • Liked: 3247
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2768 on: July 08, 2018, 12:19 »
    Yeah We dont know those circumstances, as we dont know Froomey's. Pretty unusefull I might say.

    I bet Froomey and SKy will show how transparent they actually are and release everything concerning?

      If nothing else, it serves to show that the decision far from unique, even if an individual's circumstances are unique.

    I'm pretty sure that if they did release everything, few opinions would change.

    Anyhow, further to that, the UCI issue a rather long press release on various things stemming from public questioning.

    http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/response-public-comments-the-proceedings-involving-froome/
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 15:04 by Mellow Velo »

    t-72

    • Road Captain
    • Country: no
    • Posts: 1913
    • Liked: 3462
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2769 on: July 08, 2018, 19:53 »
    Here's an interesting stat that might interest those who hasn't definitively made up their mind on the case.

    https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/status/1015515615581401088

    That's a 52.7% - 47.3% split.

    I assume this is across all sports, ie....mostly swimming, then some xc skiing and some cycling too?
  • ReplyReply

  • Merckx Index

    • Sunday Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 39
    • Liked: 106
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2770 on: July 08, 2018, 21:31 »
    I assume this is across all sports, ie....mostly swimming, then some xc skiing and some cycling too?


    Yes. To add a little more, according to CN, who inquired, only eight athletes in that five year period were cleared of a salbutamol AAF. This means that 19 (27-8) of the cases that did not result in a sanction involved athletes with TUEs, whose cases would have been cleared before even notifying the athlete. So 30 athletes in that five year period—an average of 6 per year—were sanctioned, while 8, an average of 1-2 per year, were not. Thus about 80% (30/38) of salbutamol AAFs that do not involve a TUE are sanctioned. A very large majority of AAFS are sanctioned, not the roughly 50% that one would conclude not taking into account TUEs (which need to be excluded since in that case the athlete can exceed the limit).

    Some other important stats. In 2016, there were about 212,000 tests. Based on figures provided by researcher Ken Fitch, it appears that something like 5-8% of all athletes are (or claim to be) asthmatic, so roughly 10-15,000 tests were done on athletes who take salbutamol some of the time. Thus less than one in a thousand of those tests resulted in an AAF that did not involve a TUE.

    Exceeding the limit is clearly a very rare occurrence. Though WADA hasn't said so in so many words, the implication of clearing Froome, and at the same insisting that the rules don't have to be changed, is that most athletes, most of the time, don't take the full allowed amount of 800 ug within twelve hours. That has to be their argument for why so few AAFs occur, because otherwise (if athletes usually took all or close to the allowed 800 ug) the stats I've just provided would alone show how high wildly improbable Froome's AAF was. And in fact, this claim--that most of the time athletes don't take the full amount, and certainly he didn't most of the time--is the basis for Froome's defense. He's claiming that most of the time during the Vuelta (and throughout his previous career, for that matter) he was taking far less  than the allowed maximum. This is why his values prior to stage 18 were relatively low, only spiking on that stage.

    But even to spike that high is a very rare occurrence according to the literature. Froome's defense claims that this literature doesn't take into account the effect of intense efforts on salbutamol excretion (though studies have been done involving intense effort and dehydration, and still show that exceeding the limit is a very rare occurrence). Then apparently they used all of Froome's values, together with his reported amounts inhaled those days (having to trust his word, I assume, though it could definitely be in his interest to lie) to run a simulation model. They claim there was a fairly high % of events exceeding the limit when 800 ug were taken.

    Without seeing the data, it's impossible to evaluate, but simulation models are easy to manipulate, because relatively small changes in starting inputs can often have very large effects on outputs. Models of this kind should be validated by using them to predict values which are then compared with values in the literature, but this can't have been done here, since the literature clearly doesn't agree with the conclusions of the model. Again, they're assuming the conditions of a GT are different (or Froome himself is; to be fair, the literature looks at variation among subjects, but generally not within them), but it would be very hard to test this. You would need samples every day from GT riders taking salbutamol, and other than Froome, such data are very rare if existent at all.

    I have some other comments/criticisms that I've posted elsewhere and won't go into here. But one point I think should be emphasized, because the media haven't picked up on it. WADA said that Froome didn't have to provide a CPKS--a controlled lab study showing that his salbutamol level could be replicated--because the conditions of the Vuelta would be impossible to repeat. Among those conditions were mentioned illness and the use of certain other drugs. But UCI, in their statement, rejected those factors as irrelevant to Froome's case. So all WADA is left with is that riding in a GT can't be replicated in a lab. Therefore. any rider who exceeds the limit in a GT should be excused from the CPKS. That would be a very large proportion of the cases--both Petacchi and Ulissi, e.g.--and one could probably extend the same reasoning to one day races, since they're preceded by hard training.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 21:58 by Merckx Index »

    riding too slowly

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 307
    • Liked: 308
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2771 on: July 08, 2018, 22:04 »
    ...............................The leak did not come from Sky.  And it did not come from Cookson.  Brailsford, Michele and Froome knew where the leak was from and that is why Froome didn't back off like a scalded kid and go and sit in a corner whilst the grown-ups decided on his punishment.  He had been dealt the ace of the trump suit and was gauranteed to win the only trick that mattered - the last one. .....................................

    Loving it https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44752765   All the confidence of someone who knows he also can play that ace the Froome holds.

    As I said - Brasilford knows where the leak came from and he may well have someone who is willing to go on the record and state so, if push gets to shove...................
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11864
    • Liked: 7716
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2772 on: July 09, 2018, 08:39 »
    Exceeding the limit is clearly a very rare occurrence. Though WADA hasn't said so in so many words, the implication of clearing Froome, and at the same insisting that the rules don't have to be changed, is that most athletes, most of the time, don't take the full allowed amount of 800 ug within twelve hours. That has to be their argument for why so few AAFs occur, because otherwise (if athletes usually took all or close to the allowed 800 ug) the stats I've just provided would alone show how high wildly improbable Froome's AAF was. And in fact, this claim--that most of the time athletes don't take the full amount, and certainly he didn't most of the time--is the basis for Froome's defense. He's claiming that most of the time during the Vuelta (and throughout his previous career, for that matter) he was taking far less  than the allowed maximum. This is why his values prior to stage 18 were relatively low, only spiking on that stage.
    Indeed, they don't take the maximum allowed dose most of the time.
    The WADA limits are extremely generous compared to 'normal' use of any medication because you can then assume that going over the limit indicates unnormal use - otherwise known as abuse.
    E.g. the testosterone-epitestosterone ratio is (or was) allowed to go up to 5:1 in a sample before triggering a positive while the ratio in an unmedicated human is closer to 1:1.[1] That shows that in case of there being a limit you have to cross in order to trigger a positive, it's more of a case of limiting the use of that substance than of eliminating it altogether.

    I know that plenty of riders in the peloton use inhalers even though they don't have asthma - simply because it's not banned. And some may take salbutamol in other forms (nebuliser, pills, injections) because you cannot determine how the substance was administered, just how much of it there is.

    In my opinion, to use salbutamol, you should have to get a TUE on the basis of a neutral, third-party physician assessing you and confirming that you do indeed have asthma. And even then, you should have to stay below certain limits.
     1. not an expert on this, so the actual numbers may be a bit different
  • ReplyReply

  • Merckx Index

    • Sunday Rider
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 39
    • Liked: 106
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2773 on: July 09, 2018, 16:26 »
    Indeed, they don't take the maximum allowed dose most of the time.
    The WADA limits are extremely generous compared to 'normal' use of any medication because you can then assume that going over the limit indicates unnormal use - otherwise known as abuse.

    WADA bends over backwards to accommodate athletes:

    1)   800 ug in twelve hours is more than an athlete who is well enough to compete should need (when Petacchi was sanctioned, he had a TUE, but it only allowed 600 ug)
    2)   1000 ng/ml is very rarely exceeded by someone taking 800 ug, even all at once and right before providing a urine sample, which should almost never happen in a race
    3)   the threshold of 1000 ng/ml is extended to 1200 ng/ml decision limit, to allow for the maximum amount of assay error or uncertainty
    4)   the urine level can be reduced by correcting for urine specific gravity, but only if the correction makes it less; if the correction makes it more (dilute urine), the athlete doesn’t have to use it
    5)   if an athlete thinks he will need more for an emergency, he can get a back-dated TUE (probably what Froome should have done, if he was as ill as he claims)
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11864
    • Liked: 7716
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2774 on: July 09, 2018, 22:59 »
    Or am I missing something that someone here who has an actual medical background can enlighten me on? (Genuine question.)
    I don't have a medical background (unless you count my father being a nurse), but I will say this:
    There is the definite possibility that Froome did not inhale the salbutamol. :shh
  • ReplyReply

  • t-72

    • Road Captain
    • Country: no
    • Posts: 1913
    • Liked: 3462
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2775 on: July 09, 2018, 23:24 »
    .... And some may take salbutamol in other forms (nebuliser, pills, injections) because you cannot determine how the substance was administered, just how much of it there is....
    AFAIK and not an expert, but:
    Martin Johnsrud Sundby was convicted for using a nebulizer and for using an amount of salbutamol that would give him an uptake under the limit (there are losses with the nebulizer, not all of the fog is inhaled) but he was convicted for the gross amount of salbutamol used instead of the concentations measured.

    In other words, athletes probably can still use a nebulizer legally but then their uptake would be significantly less than the limit.

    The long list of legal-concentration samples vs the 1 presumed adverse analytical finding is the main problem here. It is quite contrived to explain it as if there was a special need to cheat on just that single day.

    Having said all that, there is a need across all sports to take a look at all the "breathing-helpers" being used by athletes these days. Today I saw both Geraint Thomas and Warren Barguil warming up with something (white pad of some kind) stuffed up their noses - I assume this is ammoniumr. If that's the case - the Russian football team uses it too, not to mention just about every weight lifting competitor. Should this really be allowed?   
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2776 on: July 10, 2018, 01:59 »
    . .  - I assume this is ammoniumr.  . . .


    Did you mean ammonium? I googled ammoniumr and got no results.

    You know, the "experts" have frequently been quoted as saying there is no performance benefit from salbutamol. Which, frankly, I do not believe, not even 10%. There is way too much doubt in my mind.

    Created, first, by the fact that it became widely recognized in the EPO era that some people "responded", and others did not. So, we have a variance in individual response. Secondly, this is a drug that helps asthmatics open their air passageways during an asthma attack. So, how is it possible that the drug - a chemical - only benefits back to the "normal" baseline? No, sorry, I can't swallow that. Going back to the first point, maybe it somehow affects some people by only bringing the situation back near somewhere "normal". But it simply makes sense that there are other people whom it would give a benefit to, and some people for whom it would not work particularly well. Normal range of human response.

    I do think Froome believes he's only "leveling the playing field". But I don't believe it. Not for a New York second. Fortunately, we are not talking about the sort of advantage that EPO or steroids can confer. As it is, I would probably have joined in the booing if I had been at the TdF team presentation. As rude as that was, I probably would have. I do think, though, that he is still beatable, even with the drug advantage.
  • ReplyReply
  • . . .He had the bit between his teeth, and he loiked the taste, mate . . .

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11864
    • Liked: 7716
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2777 on: July 10, 2018, 05:41 »
    I do think Froome believes he's only "leveling the playing field". But I don't believe it. Not for a New York second. Fortunately, we are not talking about the sort of advantage that EPO or steroids can confer.
    You're right, it's probably not on that level.

    But salbutamol, in high doses, is believed to work almost like an anabolic steroid, a.o. stripping every gram of extra fat you might have.
  • ReplyReply

  • Drummer Boy

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 3224
    • Liked: 3868
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2778 on: July 10, 2018, 14:41 »
    But salbutamol, in high doses, is believed to work almost like an anabolic steroid, a.o. stripping every gram of extra fat you might have.

    This touches on an important aspect of all doping. It seems not uncommon that various substances have been used in ways that "experts" either hadn't anticipated or simply don't understand. It's almost quaint now to think back about the accusations of Landis using testosterone. People may forget this, but at the time, there was no shortage of doctors, trainers and other "experts" who openly questioned if testosterone would even be useful to cyclists, even though it was listed as a banned substance.

    Yes, this argument was actually made at the time. The belief being that (A) Testosterone was primarily used to build muscle mass, and that bulking up was contrary to what a TdF-contending cyclist would want to do to their bodies, and that (B) the benefits of testosterone only occurred gradually and after a period of time of sustained use. At Floyd's USADA hearing, I remember Joe Papp's testimony where he explained how he would almost instantly feel the benefits of testosterone, and how micro-dosing was used to avoid testing positive. That his testimony was called into question at all is laughable ten years later. Testosterone use, in small doses, as a recovery agent isn't disputed by anyone anymore. It was probably one of the more commonly abused PEDs for many years. And yet, at the time, many people, including some in the medical field, simply couldn't wrap their heads around it. It was a failure of imagination, if ever there was one.

    This is why I generally ignore all arguments in support of athletes when it comes to why, how and for what use, certain substances may or may not be used. Cheaters are always ahead of the game, and imaginative uses and applications of products have always been key to their methods. A drug designed for one ailment may have often have hidden or unintended benefits for an athlete when applied in an unconventional manner, or one in which the drug was never originally conceived for.

    So if more than one cyclists is ever found to have some sort of topical cream that's marketed for making finger nails shinier, or a spray that is marketed for making eyebrows more stylish, I'll just assume that someone discovered that mixing either one of them with their morning coffee resulted in increased stamina and/or speed, regardless of what the products manufacturers may claim.


    Sidenote:
    Joe Papp, one of the most infamous of admitted dopers, was himself busted for using testosterone at the Tour of Turkey in 2006. And yet he, too, claims that although he was plenty doped-up on other products at the time, testosterone wasn't one of them. So much for testing. Go figure.
  • ReplyReply

  • pastronef

    • Road Captain
    • Country: it
    • Posts: 1119
    • Liked: 665
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2779 on: August 02, 2018, 20:01 »

    The leak did not come from Sky.  And it did not come from Cookson. Brailsford, Michele and Froome knew where the leak was from and that is why Froome didn't back off like a scalded kid and go and sit in a corner whilst the grown-ups decided on his punishment.  He had been dealt the ace of the trump suit and was gauranteed to win the only trick that mattered - the last one.


    any hint about where the leak came from?
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2780 on: August 04, 2018, 01:35 »
    https://www.velonews.com/2018/08/news/hinault-refuses-to-keep-mouth-shut-over-froome-case-and-changing-sport_473957

    Hinault, ever known as a good-tempered, easy-going sort, is still speaking out. I like what he has to say here. There is some generality to the comments, but there is also some specificity. Posted under "Froome", since that is where it has the most relevance.
  • ReplyReply

  • blutto

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 3141
    • Liked: 113
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2781 on: August 04, 2018, 12:21 »
    any hint about where the leak came from?

    ....here is a thought, and yeah it draws heavily from the conspiracy swamp, but this could be a variation of the way the Bush team dealt with The Shrub's problematic "military record ( his time in the reserves was getting increased attention and it didn't paint W in a very good light so Rove decided to get ahead of the problem and floated a story along a line somewhat similar to the truth but with a glitch or two that would ensnare the eventual story-teller and eventually squelch the story.....that in a nutshell is how and why Dan Rather got "Dan Rathered"....the story he told was true but the way he said was wrong and he got tarred for that...)...

    ...so I could see the Sky brain-trust realizing they had a problem that under normal means could not possibly disappear so they may have well decided to get ahead of the story by leaking it...

    ....and just oddly enough the reporter who broke the Froome story just got hired by Sky.....go figure eh....from one bottom feeding propaganda organ to another, wonder if she'll get a corner office with a view....

    https://twitter.com/marthakelner/status/1024984826510827520
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 8073
    • Liked: 6787
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2782 on: August 04, 2018, 15:31 »
    ...so I could see the Sky brain-trust realizing they had a problem that under normal means could not possibly disappear so they may have well decided to get ahead of the story by leaking it...

    I think this is plausible, although UCI has plenty of history there too. As for Kelner, her now former employer isn't too healthy these days but it does smell a bit funny, so we'll have to see what sort of stuff she publishes on the dark side.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon / Larry Sarni

    M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2783 on: November 25, 2018, 03:12 »
    Ok, here we go - the REAL tale behind the wins.

    https://twitter.com/cyclismedopage/status/1066382336504328192

    LOOK at that weight curve! What is it that rational ppl say when one talks honestly about trimming the weight on bikes? That we should take 5 lbs off OUR weight - best way to increase output! AND, we on VR noticed these losses - we just had no idea what they actually were.

    AND, as we all will assume, Froome wasn't losing that weight on the cabbage soup diet! Once again, probably not banned drugs, but whatever was legal, I'll bet they were doing it.
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2784 on: May 10, 2019, 16:09 »
    A bit harsh, but it is noticeable that many ppl DO feel this way:

    https://twitter.com/Digger_forum/status/1126478753369083905

  • ReplyReply

  • Mellow Velo

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: wales
    • Posts: 2715
    • Liked: 3247
    • Awards: 2015 CQ Vuelta Game winnerVelogames Classics Champion 20142013 CQ Ranking Giro Game
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2785 on: May 10, 2019, 17:31 »
     Didn't this topic get done to death, last year?
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2786 on: May 11, 2019, 12:50 »
    Didn't this topic get done to death, last year?

    :lol  I guess not! Frankly, I kinda thought the topic was a little dead, myself - so I was a bit surprised to see that tweet thread. But I thought it was worth sharing - just so we can keep up with the conversation. And this seemed like the proper thread for it.

    A bit ironically, coming back to the thread gave me a minute to go back over the past couple pages of posts. I've been focusing on regular life things, so all the conversation here got pretty much forgotten.
  • ReplyReply

  • Drummer Boy

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 3224
    • Liked: 3868
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2787 on: October 12, 2019, 23:12 »
    One of these guys is skinnier than a marathon runner.

    The other fatty just broke an absurd record.

    https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1182946666258808834

    https://twitter.com/TeamINEOS/status/1182922185813512192

    Fully clothed, and Froome still looks like a skeletal version of the man next to him.

    I can only image what he'll look like when he starts cutting weight for the Tour.  :S
  • ReplyReply

  • M Gee

    • Road Captain
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 1907
    • Liked: 1639
    • The user formerly known as hiero
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2788 on: October 15, 2019, 16:40 »
    With all the EPO coming out of Kenyan runners, I have no faith in Kipchoge. Even if he wasn't doped, he drafted the whole race - which is like drafting in a TT in cycling - at least kinda. Not quite as much, but for someone to draft over a marathon, they have to be following somebody who is faster for at least most of the distance.

    I'll tell you what tho - re Froomey? Glanced at the Tour 2020 route - and I'm thinking I might have to get in on the prediction thread, 'cause right now I can predict either Froome or Enal to win. More in the Betting thread.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 16:51 by M Gee »

    Servais Knavendish

    • Hot Prospect
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 488
    • Liked: 500
    Re: Chris Froome
    « Reply #2789 on: October 15, 2019, 17:02 »

    I'll tell you what tho - re Froomey? Glanced at the Tour 2020 route - and I'm thinking I might have to get in on the prediction thread, 'cause right now I can predict either Froome or Enal to win. More in the Betting thread.

    Wow cheers MG top tip on two rank outsiders there!!   :D
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.

    Recent Posts



    Top
    Back to top