How good is Chris Froome?

drhaggis

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

It's not really an accusation when you've tested twice over the limit...

rick_chasey

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

What are you on about?

Bo Duke

DrHaggis wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

It's not really an accusation when you've tested twice over the limit...

of which banned substance....

Here we go... let's light the fuse again...

mamil314

Above The Cows wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

After a slow start this thread has turned out some quality posts

A bit like Froome's career.

Salzbutamol?

above_the_cows

mamil314 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

After a slow start this thread has turned out some quality posts

A bit like Froome's career.

Salzbutamol?

Judging by this picture it's not performance enhancing.

bompington

Above The Cows wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

After a slow start this thread has turned out some quality posts

A bit like Froome's career.

Salzbutamol?

Judging by this picture it's not performance enhancing.

Is he looking at the shadow of his stem in that picture?

above_the_cows

bompington wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

After a slow start this thread has turned out some quality posts

A bit like Froome's career.

Salzbutamol?

Judging by this picture it's not performance enhancing.

Is he looking at the shadow of his stem in that picture?

Vino'sGhost

Bo Duke wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

It's not really an accusation when you've tested twice over the limit...

of which banned substance....

Here we go... let's light the fuse again...

Its banned above permitted levels, even the froome suckers can probably see that. If it weren't he wouldn't be travelling the world and hiring lawyers and doctors all over the place would he. Theres no doubt, its just how much punishment he gets.
sooner its sorted the sooner we can all get on but lets not linger in the denial or justification stages any longer please.

onyourright

I’d put money on his not getting a ban, retrospective or otherwise.

That he turned down the chance of a short ban if he said sorry for having accidentally taken one puff too many, the statements from him (including ‘privately’ to Andrew Hood that he thought he’d get off), the cheap shots from Lappartient in the press, the adjusted 1429 ng/ml level barely over the 1200 ng/ml actionable level, etc., all point toward a not-guilty verdict.

larkim

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

Sadly George Bennett will be forever associated with his stupid remark on camera and will regret it for many a long year.

Only by morons, in fairness.

The same morons that have accused him relentlessly of doping on this forum or have those people also long forgotten their glib comments?

It's not really an accusation when you've tested twice over the limit...

of which banned substance....

Here we go... let's light the fuse again...

Its banned above permitted levels, even the froome suckers can probably see that.

No its not. Consuming more than a certain amount in 24 hours is banned, and tests which exceed 1000 units are considered indicative of consuming more than that specified amount, though that indicative test is refutable through production of evidence if the appropriate panel is convinced of its veracity.

I know in laymans terms the threshold feels like a limit, but it really isn't. The difference is subtle but if you're serious about following the story it's important to be clear about it, whether you're a froome sucker or not!

bobmcstuff

OnYourRight wrote:

I’d put money on his not getting a ban, retrospective or otherwise.

That he turned down the chance of a short ban if he said sorry for having accidentally taken one puff too many, the statements from him (including ‘privately’ to Andrew Hood that he thought he’d get off), the cheap shots from Lappartient in the press, the adjusted 1429 ng/ml level barely over the 1200 ng/ml actionable level, etc., all point toward a not-guilty verdict.

I suspect you are right, but I fear it will make the speculation worse (it'll be compared to Lance paying off the UCI etc.).

I think they are in a lose-lose situation though, where any ban will be seen as too lenient for some reason. If he gets a 6 month ban from hearing date, the sceptics will surely argue for a 12, if it's not backdated to strip the Vuelta result then they will argue it should be, or that he should be stripped of the Giro result as well etc.. I don't really see one solution which would seem fair and keep twitter happy. Possibly a 2 year ban from the test date with all intervening results stripped might be enough for them (?) but that seems grossly disproportionate.

larkim

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't really see one solution which would seem fair and keep twitter happy. Possibly a 2 year ban from the test date with all intervening results stripped might be enough for them (?) but that seems grossly disproportionate.

It's not really about keeping twitter happy though is it? Despite the way the world tends to work...

Agree that there is going to be no solution / outcome which feels right to everyone, but "pro" Froome people like me would certainly not get as up in arms if a sanction was applied as "anti" Froome people would if no sanction is applied. All I ask for is due process.

RichN95.

OnYourRight wrote:

I’d put money on his not getting a ban, retrospective or otherwise.

That he turned down the chance of a short ban if he said sorry for having accidentally taken one puff too many, the statements from him (including ‘privately’ to Andrew Hood that he thought he’d get off), the cheap shots from Lappartient in the press, the adjusted 1429 ng/ml level barely over the 1200 ng/ml actionable level, etc., all point toward a not-guilty verdict.

I'm inclined to agree, having previously thought there was no chance. Lappartient reminds me of the adage from political journalism that the side which is talking to the press the most is losing/has lost (relates to policy arguments rather than elections).

bobmcstuff

larkim wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't really see one solution which would seem fair and keep twitter happy. Possibly a 2 year ban from the test date with all intervening results stripped might be enough for them (?) but that seems grossly disproportionate.

It's not really about keeping twitter happy though is it? Despite the way the world tends to work...

I know, just means the BS will never stop!

joey54321

Anyone who has an emotional reaction to someone on the internet accusing a professional cyclist of doping is a bit of an idiot. Unless that pro is a friend or family member why the f do you care what others think? Ultimately we don't know.

bompington

joey54321 wrote:

Anyone who has an emotional reaction to someone on the internet accusing a professional cyclist of doping is a bit of an idiot. Unless that pro is a friend or family member why the f do you care what others think? Ultimately we don't know.

Oh dear, this again.
The guy who accuses him in the first place is equally an idiot.
The one who has an emotional reaction is equally an idiot.
You're equally an idiot for having an emotional reaction to people having an emotional reaction.
I'm equally an idiot for having a reaction to you having a...

...oh for goodness' sake, let's all go for a bike ride.

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

sky's view of that stage

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

"We had reconnoitred the Finestre by mistake"

Yes I loved that. Who the f*ck just happens to end up on a climb like that by mistake?

Here's Kerrison on the Finestre...

I had forgotten quite how much Brailsford loves explaining how clever he is...

shipley

This nonsense is down to SKY and their arrogance. Whatever the cause, Froome was tested at double the limit.

If he, and his masters had had the good grace to say ‘it’s a fair cop, we don’t know why but the limits were broken so we will take an off season ban’ then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, this will drag on and on, damaging the sport as it goes and ensuring Froome will be viewed with suspicion forever.

He’ll never shake this off now whatever the official result.

Well done lads !

The Tour should be interesting.

shirley_basso

....

Matthewfalle

Shirley Basso wrote:

....

Why?

EDIT: SB's original post said "do one" before he edited it to "...."

MF is now intrigued why the poster above should "do one" AND why SB changed his post to "...."

andyp

This is cod science at it's very best;

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/inscyd- ... rformance/

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

This is cod science at it's very best;

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/06/inscyd- ... rformance/

I have no idea if it's cod science, but all it's saying is that people who win Grand Tours are physical outliers (outliers within a group of outliers even). Essentially it's asking the question 'Is it credible that a rider who has won five GTs can win a sixth?'. Cycling has lost it's mind.

andyp

It's cod science in the sense that they are trying to validate a performance based on snippets of data, so they've basically guessed the other parameters they need.

andyp

But I agree with your synopsis - how can you be shocked that a rider with a record of winning GTs is good enough to win another.

bompington

Its cod science indeed..

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

But I agree with your synopsis - how can you be shocked that a rider with a record of winning GTs is good enough to win another.

As I wrote on Twitter at the time

Cycling social media in a nutshell:
Morning of Stage 19: If I was a Sky DS I would launch an attack from a loooong way out. But Sky won't because they are boring robots. Not like Contador, he is dreamy.
Evening of Stage 19: This is BS. I'm done with cycling

FocusZing

Chris Froome might be the greatest GT cyclist on earth, but I don't think he could compete on an intergalactic level?

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

andyp wrote:

But I agree with your synopsis - how can you be shocked that a rider with a record of winning GTs is good enough to win another.

As I wrote on Twitter at the time

Cycling social media in a nutshell:
Morning of Stage 19: If I was a Sky DS I would launch an attack from a loooong way out. But Sky won't because they are boring robots. Not like Contador, he is dreamy.
Evening of Stage 19: This is BS. I'm done with cycling

He was supposed to try but fail, preferably spectacularly. People would have liked him more then.

bobmcstuff

andyp wrote:

It's cod science in the sense that they are trying to validate a performance based on snippets of data, so they've basically guessed the other parameters they need.

At least they take some effort to talk about the uncertainties in the data, and it's not too polarised.

But as mentioned, the conclusion " Weber believes the athlete who did the 2015 lab test was also capable of the data Velon released from Stages 14, 19 and 20" is pretty unsurprising!

pblakeney

Pross wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

andyp wrote:

But I agree with your synopsis - how can you be shocked that a rider with a record of winning GTs is good enough to win another.

As I wrote on Twitter at the time

Cycling social media in a nutshell:
Morning of Stage 19: If I was a Sky DS I would launch an attack from a loooong way out. But Sky won't because they are boring robots. Not like Contador, he is dreamy.
Evening of Stage 19: This is BS. I'm done with cycling

He was supposed to try but fail, preferably spectacularly. People would have liked him more then.

Preferring failure to success?
Sums the British public up perfectly.