Froome's Data
Comments
-
The grassy knoll bunch are now claiming cos there are photocopier marks on Froome's lab results sheet from 2007, this means it was all photo-shopped
Someone call in Xerox0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Pozzo, Porte, Meintjes, Ulissi, Fernandez, Hesjedal, Lulu, Taaramae...Cav, Ewan, Nizzolo, Wippert, Pelucchi.
Not shabby so far (compared to normal).0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757643#p19757643]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:The grassy knoll bunch are now claiming cos there are photocopier marks on Froome's lab results sheet from 2007, this means it was all photo-shopped
Someone call in Xerox
Apparently one of the pictures doing the rounds has had something done to it in Photoshop (according to the file info or something). But that could be anything really.
Also there seems to be 2 slightly different versions of the results sheet that are formatted a bit differently. Given they both have the same results on I'm not really sure why that's a problem but apparently it proves the conspiracy somehow.0 -
CTT have reported a couple of recent cases from the national time trials based on anti doping tests. think its been highlighted in the comic. haven't seen much else..
I have no idea whether or not this is true, but coming as it does from you, I suppose it's pointless asking for actual evidence...[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757643#p19757643]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:The grassy knoll bunch are now claiming cos there are photocopier marks on Froome's lab results sheet from 2007, this means it was all photo-shopped
Someone call in Xerox
Apparently one of the pictures doing the rounds has had something done to it in Photoshop (according to the file info or something). But that could be anything really.
Also there seems to be 2 slightly different versions of the results sheet that are formatted a bit differently. Given they both have the same results on I'm not really sure why that's a problem but apparently it proves the conspiracy somehow.
Esquire did it, Swart confirmed yesterday. Probably not the cleverest thing to do but I suspect Esquire aren't used to dealing with asylum members0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Pozzo, Porte, Meintjes, Ulissi, Fernandez, Hesjedal, Lulu, Taaramae...Cav, Ewan, Nizzolo, Wippert, Pelucchi.
Not shabby so far (compared to normal).
Cav's not riding TDU. Riding the Track World Cup in HK 16-17 Jan, innit0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757672#p19757672]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Pozzo, Porte, Meintjes, Ulissi, Fernandez, Hesjedal, Lulu, Taaramae...Cav, Ewan, Nizzolo, Wippert, Pelucchi.
Not shabby so far (compared to normal).
Cav's not riding TDU. Riding the Track World Cup in HK 16-17 Jan, innit
And then that Cadel Ocean race thing... just after the TDU0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757672#p19757672]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Pozzo, Porte, Meintjes, Ulissi, Fernandez, Hesjedal, Lulu, Taaramae...Cav, Ewan, Nizzolo, Wippert, Pelucchi.
Not shabby so far (compared to normal).
Cav's not riding TDU. Riding the Track World Cup in HK 16-17 Jan, innit
I thought I read somewhere he was doing Cadel's race? Long way to go for a Pro Am?
Oh...wait.....it was on Cycling News“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757672#p19757672]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Pozzo, Porte, Meintjes, Ulissi, Fernandez, Hesjedal, Lulu, Taaramae...Cav, Ewan, Nizzolo, Wippert, Pelucchi.
Not shabby so far (compared to normal).
Cav's not riding TDU. Riding the Track World Cup in HK 16-17 Jan, innit
I thought I read somewhere he was doing Cadel's race? Long way to go for a Pro Am?
Oh...wait.....it was on Cycling News
Well San Luis is out if Gaviria is racing there
0 -
^oh #BURN0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757643#p19757643]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:The grassy knoll bunch are now claiming cos there are photocopier marks on Froome's lab results sheet from 2007, this means it was all photo-shopped
Someone call in Xerox
Apparently one of the pictures doing the rounds has had something done to it in Photoshop (according to the file info or something). But that could be anything really.
Also there seems to be 2 slightly different versions of the results sheet that are formatted a bit differently. Given they both have the same results on I'm not really sure why that's a problem but apparently it proves the conspiracy somehow.
Esquire did it, Swart confirmed yesterday. Probably not the cleverest thing to do but I suspect Esquire aren't used to dealing with asylum members
One is clearly the original "pdf" (or similar) and one has been faxed/scanned or photocopied. Only someone determined to find a fault could think there was anything important about that. There really is nothing to see thereWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757643#p19757643]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:The grassy knoll bunch are now claiming cos there are photocopier marks on Froome's lab results sheet from 2007, this means it was all photo-shopped
Someone call in Xerox
Apparently one of the pictures doing the rounds has had something done to it in Photoshop (according to the file info or something). But that could be anything really.
Also there seems to be 2 slightly different versions of the results sheet that are formatted a bit differently. Given they both have the same results on I'm not really sure why that's a problem but apparently it proves the conspiracy somehow.
Esquire did it, Swart confirmed yesterday. Probably not the cleverest thing to do but I suspect Esquire aren't used to dealing with asylum members
One is clearly the original "pdf" (or similar) and one has been faxed/scanned or photocopied. Only someone determined to find a fault could think there was anything important about that. There really is nothing to see there
Clearly the unaltered document is the original UCI document which has been tampered with by Michelle Cound and or Richard Moore before publication in Esquire.
They just forgot to change the data :roll:
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
They re hinging it all on the fact that the BMI vaule has been calculated inexpertly (ie they missed the decimal point off but did nt round up, so it reads 21 when it's actually 21.9)
So, ignoring the whole rest of the analysis, they re focussing only on the weight issue saying that he was actually 73kg in 2007 not 75 - a whopping, unfathomable difference I think you'll agree
It's painfully sadWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Going back to the Armstrong thing. The journalists like Whittle and McGrath who seem to be his PR team nowadays are crying tears that his life ban was disproportionate. But was it? What has he actually missed? He was nearly 41 and retired by the time he was banned.
Not quite what you are getting at, but I was browsing the UCI list of banned riders the other day (cos I'm living the dream), and noticed that there are two others serving a lifetime ban - Ricco and a Bajan track rider who's name escapes me (possibly Barry?). Anyway, the notion that Lance is being singled out with a lifetime would seem risible given his 'crimes' are (imo) far greater than either of those two. In fact, it would seem entirely inline with current policy - especially given the 8 year bans that are also being handed out.
Some might argue that Ricco et al are worse as they are punishments handed down after already serving bans, but I wouldn't agree.Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy0 -
They re hinging it all on the fact that the BMI vaule has been calculated inexpertly (ie they missed the decimal point off but did nt round up, so it reads 21 when it's actually 21.9)
So, ignoring the whole rest of the analysis, they re focussing only on the weight issue saying that he was actually 73kg in 2007 not 75 - a whopping, unfathomable difference I think you'll agree
It's painfully sad
Given that's the kind of wright I'm plugging into my calcs for my playing at the hour, I can tell you with all other factors being equal you're talking about 150m in an hour"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Fair enough
But If you plug a kg either way or a cm either way into the BMI formula (weight/height2) you get something between 22.0-22.9. So the mistake is clumsy, but hardly evidence of falsifying data.
Add to that that the relevance of a specific BMI to cycling performace (i.e what matters is the value of the weight - If you re heavy becasue you re tall, tough) is minimal to absent and you can see why the lab wouldnt have payed it much attention...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I think we're agreeing. In the scheme of things, especially as you produce more power than the average bear, it's a minute difference."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
You're mixing up staff, people who are permanently employed by the UCI, and delegates from national associations who serve on committees, and are paid expenses for their contribution. There has been a high rate of staff turnover in Aigle, with a lot of the senior people who were brought in by Verbruggen/McQuaid being shown the door.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757514#p19757514]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:As for the UCI - let me know how many staff changes there were after McQuaid left. As far as one can tell, the same jobs are being done by the same people, same medical committee, tech committee, track committee, road committee etc etc.
You do miss the obvious example to make your point though, the current Director General of the UCI was previously on McQuaid's payroll.0 -
Oh sorry, I thought you meant 150m was a huge deal for you!
Even I can manage 150m in an hour.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Oh sorry, I thought you meant 150m was a huge deal for you!
Even I can manage 150m in an hour.
I can too as long as it is under 2% gradient.0 -
Ha ha
I'm expecting DG to know his distance by 150 millimeters!
That's two grams.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Ha ha
I'm expecting DG to know his distance by 150 millimeters!
That's two grams.
I prefer to think of it as one cheesy wotsit"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Tell me about it! I want to see bigger names than that has been Cavendish.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
I know, Brailsford only associates with squeaky clean riders above reproach like Rob Hayles, David Millar, Servais Knaven and Sean Yates. Why anyone would think otherwise is beyond me :?
They can test what they like. No objection against Henao was raised by the UCI or WADA. They could have just stayed silent.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport,
There's nothing wrong with that. It's common ownership that's not allowed. e.g. Katusha/Rusvelo[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race,
That never actually happened[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc
You should have mentioned them then, rather than the wrong ones you did.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail.
No it isn't[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Maybe the reason you are so sceptical is your information is mostly wrong
Well said Rich. Unfortunately the anti-Froome/Sky brigade can only quote 'facts' that aren't correct as those 'facts' that are correct don't support their views.
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0 -
It must be time for the ward round - is that a visiting clinician?0
-
Must be day release.Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.0
-
Well excuse me for earning visitation rights. And I don't like the insinuation.
Anyone would think you don't want people backing up Sky's administration?Supporter of Sky, transparency and clean cycling. Opponent of pseudoscience.
The greatest clean cycling performance ever http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eiN2vfGKhk0
