Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Aww, Froome is all butthurt that the media doesn't believe him:

38K views 404 replies 52 participants last post by  ibericb 
#1 ·
Froome calls out 'irresponsible' Tour de France reporting | Cyclingnews.com

And calling the science that Ross Tucker and Vayer are doing right now "pseudoscience" and calling them "irresponsible fools" doesn't help your case, Mrs. Froome.

Many of the quotes in that article remind me of things a certain testicular cyclops used to say about 10-15 years ago.

I can't wait until he AND Sky get busted. It'll be a wonderful day for cycling to expose the truth of the "marginal gains" bullsh*t.
 
#7 ·
We have reason to be cynical.

How many top finishers on the GC of this millennium did NOT get popped for doping at some time this millennium? As a bonus round question, how many of those popped for doping came out and admitted it immediately: and how many claimed innocence for years only to fess up after their fame and fortune were gone?


I think he's all 'butthurt' because people are throwing piss in his face, which seems a reasonable attitude to take.
Actually, Froome's been quoting the Lance Armstrong playbook for a long while regarding people questioning his "unbelievable" (to quote Christian VdV) performances. Urine or no urine to the face.
 
#5 ·
people who actually understand the science Tucker is pushing know that it doesn't provide any evidence of doping for individuals. For one, the random error is simply too high. That's established by a peer-reviewed paper. For another, even assuming they are not imprecise, the estimates at this year's tour for Froome are not implausible. Swart showed that for stage 10 - the one Tucker wrote about.
 
#8 ·
Prexactly !

We have reason to be cynical.
Yes we do. But we also have reason to be hopeful that Froome is for real. It's quite possible that Froome is genetically gifted, and together with Team Sky they have figured out the combination of training, nutrition and recovery that allows Froome (and probably others on the team) to better optimize their performance relative to their own potential. It may be that Froome just has appreciably more potential to begin with, and is better optimized and supported in the course of the race than others.

That others who preceded him gave us ample reason to be suspicious and cynical is not sound reason to condemn Froome or Sky when he excels. It very reasonable that he is the real thing.
 
#21 ·
One can't forget that Armstrong had plenty of possible reasons that other riders were doing so poorly. Off the top of my head, in 1999 Pantani had been busted and did not start, Jan was injured and did not start, Zulle was now clean and towards the end of his career, Jullich crashed out, etc. Even Pantani's '98 TdF win could be due to the fact that Jan was out of shape and so many riders were busted or quit.
 
#149 ·
Suddenly at age 28 he becomes superhuman and guys who were top class during junior and senior years cant follow his wheel.
Someone said right, he is genetically gifted, but i would add...genetically gifted to respond to doping better than others.
Also how tall is he, i never saw climber of 190 that can outclimb an midget like Quintana.
We all know that naturally current most gifted GC riders are Conti, Valverde and Quintana.
Nibali reads race the best and is great tactician.
Everything about Froom screams something is wrong.
 
#24 ·
#67 ·
ASO calculating 7 W/Kg. Presumably on a different rider weight:

Un reportage qui accable (encore) Froome - 7SUR7.be
I don't think people understand how important this is. In LA's time, 7 W/Kg was the magic number for winning the tour - a guarantee.
With Froome hitting this number, no one else can win unless some disaster befalls him.

When we learned that this was approximately the power/weight ratio that Lance achieved - it was explained away at the time by a fantastical description of how he was, basically, a physiological mutant (I think the Discovery channel even did a show on LA's physiology).

I don't believe in the existence of naturally occurring physiological mutants (to this degree) anymore. Case closed.
 
#33 ·
Maybe Froome is doped to the gills, and has figured out how to get away with it. Armstrong pulled it off until, well after the fact, a whole long line of people decided to tell the story. That's the only way he got nailed. Could Froome be another? Sure. But he could just as probably be an exception. There is nothing seen that sways the probability one way or the other. You've provided nothing of merit to show he isn't. That's the point.

Got facts? Bring 'em. Until then you're running on a suspicion, and a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.

Enjoy your beliefs.
 
#36 ·
Maybe Froome is doped to the gills, and has figured out how to get away with it. Armstrong pulled it off until, well after the fact, a whole long line of people decided to tell the story. That's the only way he got nailed. Could Froome be another? Sure. But he could just as probably be an exception. There is nothing seen that sways the probability one way or the other. You've provided nothing of merit to show he isn't. That's the point.

Got facts? Bring 'em. Until then you're running on a suspicion, and a conspiracy theory, and nothing more.

Enjoy your beliefs.
The past is a great indicator of the probability of Froome being dirty. Just like Nibali last year.

You don't believe history repeats itself I guess. Or you believe the crap out there about a "clean peloton." Even Vaughters, who DOES believe in a cleaner peloton is puzzled by "Mr. Skeleton Humping A Bicycle."
 
#38 ·
He's so physically gifted for this sport that he has asthma. I hope he's not cheating, but his performance and his trammates' performances are suspicious. And, as others have noted, his former teammates never seem to reach the same level once they leave Sky. Pro cycling remains a sad sport.
 
#39 ·
And, as others have noted, his former teammates never seem to reach the same level once they leave Sky. Pro cycling remains a sad sport.
Noted, but no names provided, so how can one say one way or another.

Not that it matters. Even accepting the proposition that every rider who leaves Sky underperforms relative to how they did before, what does that prove? And no, suspicion is not the same as proof.
 
#51 ·
I'm not going to say I think the team is clean. I will say, however, that no one has explained how they managed to pull the wool over David Walsh's eyes. Walsh ferreted out the truth about Armstrong long, long before the world was ready to hear about it, and was not the least bit shy about exposing it, and weathering the torrents of legal actions and the public backlash from Lance's fanboi army. So his bona fides in the area are pretty damned solid.

Walsh was embedded with Sky for an extended period and had, by his own and other's accounts, open access to anything and anyone he wanted to see. He certainly knows more about doping and about Team Sky than any of us do, and he says they're clean.

That gives me pause. If it wasn't for Walsh's reputation, history and his publications about the team, I would be way over on the skeptical end of the spectrum. As it is, I'm in the hopeful middle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBL450
#59 ·
Jalabert said nothing.
He used the word 'surreal' and that means nothing. Certainly it isn't an insinuation. I too might have used that term in comparison to CF's rivals.

It's not about what LJ said but the rest of the media trying to stir things up. "Ooh look what LJ said... surreal."

There are usually flaws in making a smooth translation between French and English (be it American). We've seen this on several counts in the past as well.
 
#60 · (Edited)
Not only did Jalabert say the reported words (on a live broadcast), he was later interviewed in French and had the exact same words, in French, repeated to him to ask for clarification at which point he denied saying them! I expect we might get a "I misspoke" from him or maybe not. He has no credibility in France let alone elsewhere.
 
#63 ·
He wasn't that bad on Sky. Sure, it was a slow year for him. Sir Wiggo was still able to lead him out in Paris for the win.

I would think the lessons learned from US Postal is to keep doping very secret. Nobody sees anything and probably won't be in a hurry to confess.
 
#62 ·
The funny thing about Froome's asthma was that he had it all his life, but it didn't make his biography.

I have had it all my life and it was very bad when I was a kid. If I ever wrote an autobigraphy, there would be a few chapters devoted to how much asthma used to suck before some of the better meds came out. Finishing a bike race wouldn't have been possible when my asthma wasn't controlled. I'm always thankful that things are much better now.
 
#66 ·
The real issue is fandom. When fans start to leave, the UCI will be forced to react. I watch the tour every year. When the winners start to look superhuman, or come out of nowhere, or both I switch it off. The moment Froome and Sky crushed guys last Tuesday was the last TV footage I consumed.

I think with LA we should have learned that when it's your guy or your country you will cling to anything to validate him winning.
 
#72 ·
IIRC, the "expert" was Pallet who came up with the 7 W/kg which was for peak power output (over a five minute period). That was calculated (usual assumption etc.) from the overall power estimate of the climb of just below 6 W/kg.

The 7 W/kg got headlined without any qualification or explanation.
 
#73 ·
7 W/kg for a 5-minute peak is within the well established range for world class athletes as determined by Coggan, et al, at TrainingPeaks. But that doesn't answer the question of doped or clean, because nobody can be certain of the state of the riders profiled to get those numbers.

Power data neither confirms nor refutes whether a rider is clean or not. Suspicion is fine, but the analysis, even if accurate, proves nothing.
 
#75 ·
Maybe UCI can do something similar to what NASCAR did a few decades ago - establish a power limit for the engine. I'm sure a crafty engineer could come up with a way to put a limiter in a bicycle drivetrain. Would that resolve the issue? Not at all.
 
#82 · (Edited)
The other obvious problem is the presumption that we know his weight exactly. What is quoted in a press release might not have much bearing on his actual mass in the midst of the tour, and that could introduce a significant bias.

Indeed, today he disclosed that his racing weight is 67-68 kg, not the often cited 71. That changes the watts/kg numbers quite a bit.
 
#85 ·
The problem that a lot of us notice is throughout professional sports, the peak performances from modern athletes has always been linked to doping. The more incredible the results, the amount of money involved and the more sophisticated the programs has always been implicated in doping.

Whether it's baseball, football, basketball, track and field or cycling, we have seen incredible gains over relatively short periods of time - just look at pics of Barry Bonds or LeBron James (or even Tiger Woods) and how the body changes over time. Cyclists going from mediocre to exceptional just by changing "programs" etc. Over time it all comes out even after lots of negative tests and the vehement denials, it's like the Walking Dead, everybody is infected and they all turn.

Maybe I'm just realistic or just cynical, but when lots of money is involved, whether it's sports or politics or business, there will always be cheating and corruption and the more money involved the higher more sophisticated level of cheating will occur. In other words, maybe most small time amateur competition is clean but pro sports?

If anyone can effectively argue the opposite, I've yet to hear it but I'm all ears.
 
#90 ·
The problem that a lot of us notice is throughout professional sports, the peak performances from modern athletes has always been linked to doping. The more incredible the results, the amount of money involved and the more sophisticated the programs has always been implicated in doping. ...
Your points are valid, but your view is way too limited. It's not just professional sports. As long as there are significant awards at stake, whether direct monetary or fame, there has been someone who will cheat to try to game the system. It extends well beyond professional sports, and it is hardly just modern. It's the same in entertainment, business, gambling you name it. It goes back millenia. In sports it's not just the pros; have you forgotten the long history of "cheating" or illicit drug use in the Olympic games? Cycling is no different, and never has been. Look up the history of Choppy Warburton in the 19th century. Merckx was busted for what would today be called doping at least three times in his career.
 
#92 ·
There is a good reflective Op-Ed article by Ed Bradley, editor-in-chief at Velo News, that puts Froome's performance into what I believe is a proper perspective. As Bradly notes, we simply don't know, nobody knows. Everything being suggested about Froome is simply suspicion based and speculative at best.

To be fair to Froome, had it not been for the Armstrong era he wouldn't be so suspect. As Bradley notes, Froome's performance in stage 10 relative to the other GC contenders isn't that spectacular when viewed in the light of pre-Lance TdF's, such as LeMond's accomplishments in the 1986 TdF. That year LeMond finished stage 13 in the Pyrenees, which included Col de Tourlamet, Col de Aspin and Col de Peyresourde, a full 1' 12" ahead of Robert Millar who came in second. After that, LeMond and Hinault finished stage 18 together, after climbing Alp d'Huez, a full 5' 15" ahead of Urs Zimmerman. When it was all said and done, LeMond led by 3' 10" over Hinault, and 10' 54" over Zimmerman.

Post-Armstrong, Froome is in a difficult position. He can't prove he's completely clean, but there isn't any credible fact that indicates he isn't. As a result suspicion and skepticism will continue.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top