Chris Froome salbutamol/Tour merged threads

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

Some stuff from the UCI. I'm not sure it tells us that much.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/respons ... ng-froome/

(iv) The specific context of the substance and the case:
The reality is that salbutamol is permitted for therapeutic purposes and that Mr Froome uses salbutamol to treat asthma. In addition, Mr. Froome could expect to be (and was) tested on almost every day of the Vuelta a España. These contextual elements are not conclusive but were obviously elements to take into account in deciding to follow WADA’s position.

Translation - Mr Froome wouldn't cheat - he new he was going to be tested.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

However, lots of things went wrong and it took some time to work out for him. But the likes of Tucker never saw any of this. They just saw some results sheets on PCS.

Indeed.

You look at Froome's first 2 GT's. 83rd and then 36'th

Dumoulin : 41st and 33rd

Yet some others are up near top 10 right away.

There isn't a right or wrong way. There are different ways

The thing is Froome made a GT top ten in his fourth season. Of the 18 GT winners since 2006 only Valverde, Aru, Schleck and Sastre did it quicker.

The problem with this analysis is it ignores the sheer tonnage of achievement of other GC top tenners before their GC top ten.

https://www.teamsky.com/riders/chris-froome


I'd guess with confidence, that every other rider in the Sky line up has a more promising early career path than their current leader.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

The problem with this analysis is it ignores the sheer tonnage of achievement of other GC top tenners before their GC top ten.

https://www.teamsky.com/riders/chris-froome


I'd guess with confidence, that every other rider in the Sky line up has a more promising early career path than their current leader.

And they all come from countries with a history of producing cyclists and a clear career pathway. How many do you think would have even made it as a pro if they'd come from Nairobi. Also remember Froome's team collapsed in his second season.

We often say that children that have the money to go the likes of Eton and Harrow have a massive head start in life, so why don't consider the advantages some cyclists have from their formative years. For example Taylor Phinney - right parents, right contacts, right opportunities, track world champion at 18, looked like a world beater but has done sod all since turning pro. Froome's the opposite - the kid with almost no opportunities available to him.

Bumo_b

Anyone who cycles with his brakes on to simulate hill climbing obviously shows a through determination to win in my view. I struggle with the brakes off!

iainf72

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The problem with this analysis is it ignores the sheer tonnage of achievement of other GC top tenners before their GC top ten.

https://www.teamsky.com/riders/chris-froome


I'd guess with confidence, that every other rider in the Sky line up has a more promising early career path than their current leader.

And they all come from countries with a history of producing cyclists and a clear career pathway. How many do you think would have even made it as a pro if they'd come from Nairobi. Also remember Froome's team collapsed in his second season.

We often say that children that have the money to go the likes of Eton and Harrow have a massive head start in life, so why don't consider the advantages some cyclists have from their formative years. For example Taylor Phinney - right parents, right contacts, right opportunities, track world champion at 18, looked like a world beater but has done sod all since turning pro. Froome's the opposite - the kid with almost no opportunities available to him.

All reasonable points

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

Secret drugs
Motors
Motors with secret drugs in

Bumo_b

Maybe it is a more sophisticated doping programme than our good friend Lance! Alternatively, he can just be damn good!!

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

Taylor Phinney - right parents, right contacts, right opportunities, track world champion at 18, looked like a world beater but has done sod all since turning pro.

Now, now that is a bit harsh. He grew a moustache.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

tailwindhome

Above The Cows wrote:

Now, now that is a bit harsh. He grew a moustache.

In fairness he rode into a metal post too.

slim_boy_fat

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

Just about to post that. If he was a donkey and is now a race horse, how was it achieved and how is it being maintained? He's got to be one of the most tested athletes in the world, so how is he maintaining his position as the greatest current GT rider if he is in fact a donkey?

It makes zero sense.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

In fairness he rode into a metal post too.

Yeah, that pretty much killed his career, but he'd stagnated long before then

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

But the transformation is also so stark because he's now the best. Not everyone can have such an obvious transformation because not everyone can be the best overall or even in their team. Cycling doesn't work like that. It requires that some riders forsake individual glory and so some riders set their ambitions accordingly. Meanwhile a race can only ever have one winner so...

above_the_cows

TailWindHome wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Now, now that is a bit harsh. He grew a moustache.

In fairness he rode into a metal post too.

Wow that orthopaedic surgeon is really skilled with the stitching, they've managed to draw Frankenstein's Monster.

tailwindhome

The state of that chain!

above_the_cows

I hadn't even seen that I was too distracted by the Frankenstein Monster.

No_Ta_Doctor

kleinstroker wrote:

Ross Tucker has put up his op-ed on Twitter, & basically it all comes down to the fact he doesn't believe how Froome can transform from a mediocre rider to tour winner since joining Sky. That is the sum total of his evidence

What a prick!

If I ever have a urine test please don't let Tucker anywhere near it. He boils my píss.

No_Ta_Doctor

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Taylor Phinney - right parents, right contacts, right opportunities, track world champion at 18, looked like a world beater but has done sod all since turning pro.

Now, now that is a bit harsh. He grew a moustache.

That's not a moustache.

THIS is a moustache, courtesy Rasmus Quaade

above_the_cows

No tA Doctor wrote:

kleinstroker wrote:

Ross Tucker has put up his op-ed on Twitter, & basically it all comes down to the fact he doesn't believe how Froome can transform from a mediocre rider to tour winner since joining Sky. That is the sum total of his evidence

What a prick!

If I ever have a urine test please don't let Tucker anywhere near it. He boils my píss.

Smoke on the water!

above_the_cows

No tA Doctor wrote:

THIS is a moustache, courtesy Rasmus Quaade

Oh dear god...



It's the Yeti!

milemuncher1

I still suspect that the bike is the issue. If he was on crack, it would be child’s play to catch him out, unless they strip the bike he was using, at the time, to bits, before it’s been ‘subed’ and the team have had the chance to remove anything dodgy, and look for anything that really shouldn’t be there, then the team can run rings around the UCI. If it was up to me, every bike used ( regardless of whether it’s been ‘subed’ or not) should be impounded, and checked, and this check should be random, and un announced. If a bike has been sub ed, that bike needs to be pulled out immediately, and quarantined, by an official ‘cheaty bastard’ wagon, and not allowed back to the team, until it’s been stripped and checked.

above_the_cows

shirley_basso

What would you find mm? CF is just the best, with the best teammates who sacrifice any ego and chance of success in GTs for the GC rider. That's all there is to it.

You can't hide a meaninful engine in these bike from.anypke with a brain cell. The technology simply does not exist.

Mad_Malx

MM1's a scientist - he knows about these things

slim_boy_fat

Jesus wept!

No_Ta_Doctor

Milemuncher1 wrote:

I still suspect that the bike is the issue. If he was on crack, it would be child’s play to catch him out, unless they strip the bike he was using, at the time, to bits, before it’s been ‘subed’ and the team have had the chance to remove anything dodgy, and look for anything that really shouldn’t be there, then the team can run rings around the UCI. If it was up to me, every bike used ( regardless of whether it’s been ‘subed’ or not) should be impounded, and checked, and this check should be random, and un announced. If a bike has been sub ed, that bike needs to be pulled out immediately, and quarantined, by an official ‘cheaty bastard’ wagon, and not allowed back to the team, until it’s been stripped and checked.

They X-Ray them. They check them with iPads for magnetic resonance.

I suspect that the bike isn't the issue. I suspect that the issue is with neurons. Yours.

kingstonian

Milemuncher1 wrote:

I still suspect that the bike is the issue. If he was on crack, it would be child’s play to catch him out, unless they strip the bike he was using, at the time, to bits, before it’s been ‘subed’ and the team have had the chance to remove anything dodgy, and look for anything that really shouldn’t be there, then the team can run rings around the UCI. If it was up to me, every bike used ( regardless of whether it’s been ‘subed’ or not) should be impounded, and checked, and this check should be random, and un announced. If a bike has been sub ed, that bike needs to be pulled out immediately, and quarantined, by an official ‘cheaty bastard’ wagon, and not allowed back to the team, until it’s been stripped and checked.

Are you for real ?!?!?!

I love winding people up, but that is priceless.

DeadCalm

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

But the transformation is also so stark because he's now the best. Not everyone can have such an obvious transformation because not everyone can be the best overall or even in their team. Cycling doesn't work like that. It requires that some riders forsake individual glory and so some riders set their ambitions accordingly. Meanwhile a race can only ever have one winner so...

Not just the best though but one of the best of all time. And arguably, if he does the quat-trick, the greatest GC rider of all time.

slim_boy_fat

DeadCalm wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

What I've never heard from anyone like Ross etc is their theory around the improvement? If they think it's doping, what kind of regime? Or is this one of those "oooh, they use a secret drug" things.

They always go "name me another current rider that's made such a transformation". To which the answer is surely "I can't, but if it was down to doping surely there would be lots of them."

But the transformation is also so stark because he's now the best. Not everyone can have such an obvious transformation because not everyone can be the best overall or even in their team. Cycling doesn't work like that. It requires that some riders forsake individual glory and so some riders set their ambitions accordingly. Meanwhile a race can only ever have one winner so...

Not just the best though but one of the best of all time. And arguably, if he does the quat-trick, the greatest GC rider of all time.

Which begs the question 'how did they transform him to that from being a donkey' even more? And how are they keeping him there without drugs on the current banned list?

Some new super drug or he was never a donkey to start with?