Chris Froome cured

Crankbrother

sjmclean wrote:

Do you question every rider this much ...

Do other teams create such hoopla about their methodology and 'professionalism'?

Do other riders receive the blanket adulation and automatic presumption of innocence?

Just because you feel I shouldn't be asking questions doesn't mean that SKY shouldn't be answering them if they want us to truly believe ...

Crankbrother

No tA Doctor wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

^ Tactics should be the only secret ... Everything else could be made available, there should be nothing to hide if they have faith they have the best rider(s) ...

What on earth are you blathering about? If they're getting a competitive advantage from e.g. training techniques that the other teams don't know about then why the hell would they give that up? Who in their right mind would demand they did?

That's just absurd.

Yes, because the protection of secrets has served cycling so well in the past 20 years ...

blazing_saddles

Crankbrother wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Do you question every rider this much ...

Do other teams create such hoopla about their methodology and 'professionalism'?

Do other riders receive the blanket adulation and automatic presumption of innocence?

Just because you feel I shouldn't be asking questions doesn't mean that SKY shouldn't be answering them if they want us to truly believe ...

You have every right to ask questions.
You just have no God given right to any answers.

The amount of hoopla the sceptics make about this fact, or any other regarding Sky, far outweighs any hoopla from Sky about their methods.
You actually demand that they act in an amateurish manner over their professionalism.

There was a great example of the disparity with how other teams "do things", just last weekend, but I won't be sharing it here.

Crankbrother

^ you're right ... I don't have any right to the answers ... just as SKY/Team GB have no right to expect people to believe in them without backing up the results with transparency ...

Although it would be a move to be wholly applauded, and the information of huge interest to many (fans and experts alike) I don't need SKY to tell me their 'secrets' ... I just need others to shut up about how above suspicion we must treat their methods ... no-one except those in that circle actually know what is actually true ...

No_Ta_Doctor

Crankbrother wrote:

^ you're right ... I don't have any right to the answers ... just as SKY/Team GB have no right to expect people to believe in them without backing up the results with transparency ...

Although it would be a move to be wholly applauded, and the information of huge interest to many (fans and experts alike) I don't need SKY to tell me their 'secrets' ... I just need others to shut up about how above suspicion we must treat their methods ... no-one except those in that circle actually know what is actually true ...

Excellent. Seeing as nobody actually says that we can wrap this up here then and all go home happy.

Stillnox

Macaloon wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

June 2011, two months later he is the best stage racer of the peloton, what kinda training is that? Reverse periodisation? Twenty - fourties? Altitude training?

Second in the 3rd GT of the year to Cobo, ahead of a winged Wiggins is what amounts to the best of the peloton? Hogwash.

Edit And don't forget that with another season on the juice under his belt he stormed to an epochal 87th all-time up The Alpe.

Do your lies never stop?

I am sensing you do not understand what I am saying

I am saying that calling second place in the third priority GT of the year (won by 42 year-old recently) ahead of the mighty Mollema and Menchov, does not come close to the standard of best in peloton. Yet you repeat this lie. Why?

I am sorry, is Fred Grappe's assesment of Froome's SRM files a lie? HE, a well known scientist, analyzed Froome's SRM's and stated they were consistent. So, when they are consistent, how come you are calling me liar? Calling me a liar means you are calling Grappe a liar.

2011 Vuelta onwards is consistent with 2013 according to Grappe, but yet you are calling me a liar because I say Froome went from a decent rider into a GT dominator in a few weeks/months time?

That is funny.

tailwindhome

Stillnox.

They are saying you are lying about Froome being the best stage racer in the peloton 2 months after June 2011

They are using his results to prove this.

It's not complicated.

Macaloon

Stillnox wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

June 2011, two months later he is the best stage racer of the peloton, what kinda training is that? Reverse periodisation? Twenty - fourties? Altitude training?

Second in the 3rd GT of the year to Cobo, ahead of a winged Wiggins is what amounts to the best of the peloton? Hogwash.

Edit And don't forget that with another season on the juice under his belt he stormed to an epochal 87th all-time up The Alpe.

Do your lies never stop?

I am sensing you do not understand what I am saying

I am saying that calling second place in the third priority GT of the year (won by 42 year-old recently) ahead of the mighty Mollema and Menchov, does not come close to the standard of best in peloton. Yet you repeat this lie. Why?

I am sorry, is Fred Grappe's assesment of Froome's SRM files a lie?

I'll think about getting into a pseudo-seance with you after you address the thorny issue of your best stage racer lie. Do results mean nothing?

whiteboytrash

ddraver wrote:

CB - do you honestly think he sells more books saying Sky are clean than he would if he had evidence Sky were doping?

Cos i dont...

Economically speaking no I don't think this statement is true.

Seeing as he writes for the Times and he is writing Froome's upcoming biography It would be considered long term "Sky is clean" would be much more lucrative.

LA Confidential and Lance to Landis sold nothing. Not to mention the lawsuits. Yikes! One million dollars!

A good investment strategy is one with long term returns not a quick win, yes?

Arkibal

This is great news.

I expect a fully healthy Froome to win the Tour by 20 minutes next year.

tailwindhome

I'm not sure how much of a cash cow Froome's autobiography will be.

I'd go fixed fee on that one.

whiteboytrash

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure how much of a cash cow Froome's autobiography will be.

I'd go fixed fee on that one.

It's ok to be unsure, yes.

I'd say the author would get an up front fee and percentage of sales.

If the now cured Froome wins a second Tour and clean I'm sure there's a great story to be told.

"It's not about the bike" was on International best seller lists for months on end. Why not the kid from Kenya who beat Badzhilla?

And knowing Walsh's attention to details and facts I'm sure it will be as every bit as compelling as a Sally Jenkins penned book.

RichN95.

A ghostwriter of an autobiography gets a flat fee for his work and no share of the royalties. A co-writer would get a share and credit but it's a quite different relationship which requires more time and input from the subject. As Froome is a busy active sportsman, Walsh is almost certainly a ghostwriter.

tailwindhome

whiteboytrash wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm not sure how much of a cash cow Froome's autobiography will be.

I'd go fixed fee on that one.

It's ok to be unsure, yes.

You really have such an unfortunate personality.

Stillnox

TailWindHome wrote:

Stillnox.

They are saying you are lying about Froome being the best stage racer in the peloton 2 months after June 2011

They are using his results to prove this.

It's not complicated.

Results mean nothing, they are statistics. Grappe has the numbers. Grappe has stated Froome 2013 is compliant with Froome Vuelta 2011.

Vuelta 2011, where Froome was not allowed to win because Sky wanted Wiggins to win. Wrong horse bet. Wiggins out time trialled by Froome, outclimbed by Froome. Froome did not win. Why was that again? Did he need to chaperone Wiggins too long?

Everybody knows that answer.

Again, who is lying? Grappe? The one who has stated on the record, even co - authored a study that ridicules guestimates on climbingwattages, that Froome 2011 is in line with Froome 2013? Froome 2013 being the best stage racer at hand.

It is indeed not complicated.

Calling me a liar is calling Grappe a liar is calling Froome's domination surreal.

tailwindhome

Stillnox wrote:

Results mean nothing, they are statistics. Grappe has the numbers..

So what you are saying is that Froome is the best in July 2013. Grappe says his numbers in 2011 are consistent with those in 2013, therefore he must be the best in August 2011.

That's a novel way to decide who is the best.

Saves having a race I suppose.

Macaloon

Stillnox wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stillnox.

They are saying you are lying about Froome being the best stage racer in the peloton 2 months after June 2011

They are using his results to prove this.

It's not complicated.

Results mean nothing, they are statistics.

Until they agree with your latest theory, when they become irrefutable evidence of doping.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

A ghostwriter of an autobiography gets a flat fee for his work and no share of the royalties. A co-writer would get a share and credit but it's a quite different relationship which requires more time and input from the subject. As Froome is a busy active sportsman, Walsh is almost certainly a ghostwriter.

Thanks.

I assume there is some form of contract law mandating this payment structure?

Stillnox

TailWindHome wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

Results mean nothing, they are statistics. Grappe has the numbers..

So what you are saying is that Froome is the best in July 2013. Grappe says his numbers in 2011 are consistent with those in 2013, therefore he must be the best in August 2011.

That's a novel way to decide who is the best.

Saves having a race I suppose.

I will respond to you, you have an open mind, not to that macaloon fella who is trolling this thread.

TWHome:
1: do you agree Froome is the best stage racer in 2013?
2: did Grappe analyse all Froome's powerfiles given to him from 2011 Vuelta onwards?
3: where these numbers consistent according to Grappe?
4: did Cobo win that 2011 Vuelta or did Sky loose that Vuelta betting on the wrong horse?
5: what was Froome's result at the Tour de Suisse 2011?

Combine 1 till 5 and maybe you will see what I am getting at. It is not high mathematics.

I will even throw in a bonus: november 2010 Froome is diagnozed with bilharzia. A full TEN months later he is - according to the powerfiles Grappe analyzed - the best stage racer of his generation.

But, here comes the crux, David Walsh last week said on that interview on cyclingnews he has seen the powerfiles of Froome at Barloworld, they were in line with those at team Sky. How come we never saw the best stage racer of now show this inmense potential while on Barloworld? I mean, Froome 2013, that is pretty good stuff on the bike, untouchable, why did we never saw a glimpse of that? Yet David Walsh states he did the same on Barloworld.

Did you see him? Did I miss it?

alihisgreat

Stillnox wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stillnox wrote:

Results mean nothing, they are statistics. Grappe has the numbers..

So what you are saying is that Froome is the best in July 2013. Grappe says his numbers in 2011 are consistent with those in 2013, therefore he must be the best in August 2011.

That's a novel way to decide who is the best.

Saves having a race I suppose.

I will respond to you, you have an open mind, not to that macaloon fella who is trolling this thread.

TWHome:
1: do you agree Froome is the best stage racer in 2013?
2: did Grappe analyse all Froome's powerfiles given to him from 2011 Vuelta onwards?
3: where these numbers consistent according to Grappe?
4: did Cobo win that 2011 Vuelta or did Sky loose that Vuelta betting on the wrong horse?
5: what was Froome's result at the Tour de Suisse 2011?

Combine 1 till 5 and maybe you will see what I am getting at. It is not high mathematics.

I will even throw in a bonus: november 2010 Froome is diagnozed with bilharzia. A full TEN months later he is - according to the powerfiles Grappe analyzed - the best stage racer of his generation.

But, here comes the crux, David Walsh last week said on that interview on cyclingnews he has seen the powerfiles of Froome at Barloworld, they were in line with those at team Sky. How come we never saw the best stage racer of now show this inmense potential while on Barloworld? I mean, Froome 2013, that is pretty good stuff on the bike, untouchable, why did we never saw a glimpse of that? Yet David Walsh states he did the same on Barloworld.

Did you see him? Did I miss it?

Froome was chubby when he was at Barloworld. That's the difference. His power probably won't have changed massively.. but his power-to-weight will have improved a lot.

Yellow Peril

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A ghostwriter of an autobiography gets a flat fee for his work and no share of the royalties. A co-writer would get a share and credit but it's a quite different relationship which requires more time and input from the subject. As Froome is a busy active sportsman, Walsh is almost certainly a ghostwriter.

Thanks.

I assume there is some form of contract law mandating this payment structure?[/

I'm sure Wikipedia, being your favoured legal authority, will give you an answer to that

whiteboytrash

Yellow Peril wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A ghostwriter of an autobiography gets a flat fee for his work and no share of the royalties. A co-writer would get a share and credit but it's a quite different relationship which requires more time and input from the subject. As Froome is a busy active sportsman, Walsh is almost certainly a ghostwriter.

Thanks.

I assume there is some form of contract law mandating this payment structure?[/

I'm sure Wikipedia, being your favoured legal authority, will give you an answer to that

Wikipedia is a phenomenal resource. It's used by Doctors, lawyers, judges, patients and drug dealers.

Prior to the inception of the internet one would rely on secondary sources such as books and journals which were often outdated at the time of publication and not open to public scrutiny.

When you compare the Encyclopedia Britannia in printed form and that it was only as relevant months prior to printing without the ability for it to be corrected by peer review.

Wikipedia is dynamic and free. There is no corporate influence and any person who has access to the internet has the ability to use it, question it and correct it. That is not possible with books and journals.

326 million users a month suggest it's a reliable and useful information portal.

If someone asserts that ghostwriters are mandated by contract law and to only be paid a "fixed fee" then it's easily verified, simply and quickly via the internet.

Which of course there is no law or rule. In this instance a ghostwriter is open to the free market as anyone would be and able to negotiate any fee or conditions that they can successfully arrange.

Now of course if you're advocating the non-use of the internet for informational research then perhaps China is better suited to your beliefs?

RichN95.

Paying a ghostwriter a flat fee is standard practice in the publishing business - there's no specific legislation other than copyright law relating to commissioned work. Technically it's the subject that pays the ghostwriter out of his advance. The ghostwriter can negotiate different terms if he wishes, but he may find that someone else will be hired instead.

Here's how it works:

The celebrity signs a contract with a publisher for an autobiography. The publisher pays the celebrity an advance (lets say £50k)
The celebrity can then either write it himself - a rarity in sports books - or hire a ghostwriter to do it for them.
The celebrity will pay the ghostwriter a flat fee (let's say £10k). There will probably be a union mandated minimum, but better writers cost more. It's a commissioned work so the celebrity holds the copyright (unlike co-writers, who are not commissioned and therefore retain a portion of the copyright).
The celebrity will offer it to a favoured writer or ask for quotes - much like hiring a builder. A publisher can suggest writers if need be.

While this is the standard practice other ways are available. For example, Charly Wegelius probably didn't get much of an advance (probably none) so is likely to be sharing royalties with Tom Southam. Also, Sean Kelly and Rob Hayles's books were written by Lionel Birnie, who was also the publisher.

So to bring this back to relevance - Walsh doesn't really have any financial interest in Froome's success. He gets a pay day, but he could easily get a similar one elsewhere.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

Paying a ghostwriter a flat fee is standard practice in the publishing business - there's no specific legislation other than copyright law relating to commissioned work. Technically it's the subject that pays the ghostwriter out of his advance. The ghostwriter can negotiate different terms if he wishes, but he may find that someone else will be hired instead.

Here's how it works:

The celebrity signs a contract with a publisher for an autobiography. The publisher pays the celebrity an advance (lets say £50k)
The celebrity can then either write it himself - a rarity in sports books - or hire a ghostwriter to do it for them.
The celebrity will pay the ghostwriter a flat fee (let's say £10k). There will probably be a union mandated minimum, but better writers cost more. It's a commissioned work so the celebrity holds the copyright (unlike co-writers, who are not commissioned and therefore retain a portion of the copyright).
The celebrity will offer it to a favoured writer or ask for quotes - much like hiring a builder. A publisher can suggest writers if need be.

While this is the standard practice other ways are available. For example, Charly Wegelius probably didn't get much of an advance (probably none) so is likely to be sharing royalties with Tom Southam. Also, Sean Kelly and Rob Hayles's books were written by Lionel Birnie, who was also the publisher.

So to bring this back to relevance - Walsh doesn't really have any financial interest in Froome's success. He gets a pay day, but he could easily get a similar one elsewhere.

How it works it's a free market system. Pure and simple. Whatever is arranged and agreed is paid.

There's much more else to it.

Market forces.

Yellow Peril

whiteboytrash wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A ghostwriter of an autobiography gets a flat fee for his work and no share of the royalties. A co-writer would get a share and credit but it's a quite different relationship which requires more time and input from the subject. As Froome is a busy active sportsman, Walsh is almost certainly a ghostwriter.

Thanks.

I assume there is some form of contract law mandating this payment structure?[/

I'm sure Wikipedia, being your favoured legal authority, will give you an answer to that

Wikipedia is a phenomenal resource. It's used by Doctors, lawyers, judges, patients and drug dealers.

Now that's a bold and wide sweeping statement. In what capacity? Can you point me to any case law whereby lawyers and judges use Wikipedia as an authority on point of law as opposed to checking Merckx's palmares? Please supply 'evidence' because I'm sure if Walsh had written such a broad brush statement in his book you'd have been down his throat.


Now of course if you're advocating the non-use of the internet for informational research then perhaps China is better suited to your beliefs?[quote]

Of course the internet is useful for research. I use it all the time at work...but I pay to use subscription legal resources. They provide access to statutory and case law and other legal resources accepted as authority by courts.

rick_chasey

Seriously, wtf is going on in this thread?

We've got one guy having to explain how ghost writing works from a financial perspective, another arguing about the validity of Wikipedia as a source of information and the rest getting shirty with each other over bs spurious claims.


Sort it out people. Come on. Not every thread with a sky rider needs to go totally crazy.

Macaloon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seriously, wtf is going on in this thread?

We've got one guy having to explain how ghost writing works from a financial perspective, another arguing about the validity of Wikipedia as a source of information and the rest getting shirty with each other over bs spurious claims.


Sort it out people. Come on. Not every thread with a sky rider needs to go totally crazy.

Yes. Let's sit back and watch the crazies turn this into Asylum 2. Nice idea boss.

amaferanga

It's getting more like the Clinic by the day (and that's not just because of Tweedledum and Tweedledee). The bitchyness and sarcasm are pathetic.

I don't post here, but I used to enjoy following the discussions. Not many discussions worth bother with these days though....

ddraver

Happens every off season...why do you think we get so excited about the Tour of Qatar? It ain't because of the camels...(well, for some people it's cos of the camels but..)

Stillnox

Macaloon wrote:

Misleading at best, so I'm calling this another lie. Grappe referred to Froome's suspected high VO2 Max. Is this what you are representing as backup for your lies?

I dont like being called a liar by someone who seems not to know what the subject is, so you are reported.

http://www.todayonline.com/sports/analy ... -hes-clean

''Grappe’s method is based on estimated Record Power Profile (PPR), which is essentially the maximum power an individual can sustain over a set period. “Froome’s PPR over two years shows no fundamental anomaly,” he wrote. “In two years, his profile has not changed.”

The data was collected from 18 climbs at the Spanish Vuelta of 2011 and 2012, this year and last year’s Tour, the Dauphine race he won this year and the 2013 Tirreno-Adriatico.''

So, if he know is the best stage racer in the world, his profile has not changed, what was he in the 2011 Vuelta? Is that so hard for you?