Lol, this thread gives me some kind of underground feel.
"The public opinion seems to agree Froome is clean and whoever states otherwise will be permanently removed from the public scene. But down here, dark matters are discussed and revolution is stirring. We dare voice the public opinion and we dare stand against the oppression of Team Sky, no matter the consequences. We are PCM.daily."
koningjantje wrote:
Froome looks like a good guy to me. If he used doping I would not be surprised though. But for now I believe he is clean.
See, that's why I don't have an obvious hatred towards Froome, and I don't believe many do because he is a very nice guy who is respectful to everyone. But to say he's clean for me, I can't do that. Armstrong was easy to "hate, Froome is somewhat harder to hate.
"Cycling is now the the world's cleanest sport." - Chris Froome
GD wrote:
The crux of the issues I have with the froome doping or not is that it doesn't add either way. If he is clean his progression is exceptional, but if he is doing it through drugs then how did drugs make an ordinary rider into one of the best in the world when EPO etc only gave riders ~10% boost and current theories are that it would be microdosing he is doing so a much smaller increase. I may well be wrong about it, anyone with more knowledge have an explanation?
10% is a huge boost. It can literally be the difference between a rider who finishes 50th and a rider who podiums a GT. That said, that is only a very generalized estimative. It obviously changes from person to person. Froome is likely a super-responder to whichever program he is doing, just like Armstrong was.
About those theories: obviously I'm not an expert, but I'd believe that it's not as simple as "microdosing = lower gain". There'd be a reason why they'd it that way, which most logically would be to maximize the effects/avoid being caught. Aquarius goes into more details about what they'd be possibly be in here: https://pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread....ost_759332
Lastly, a question to whoever understands more than me, isn't microdoses of EPO currently being used more to hide doping (blood transfusions) than as doping itself?
GD wrote:
That's a good point aquarius, and if there is a doping programme Sky would have known that it would be suspicious for him to be so good. It would have been less suspicious if they had chosen Thomas or Kennaugh. It is this that makes me think Sky are clean and if Froome is doping then it is independently (that and being British so wanting to believe Sky) It is all a bit weird
Well, although I'd believe it'd be much harder for Froome to, hiding doping from a team that (in this case) would be genuinely trying to be clean, and still run his possibly expensive (see Aquarius' post) and knowledge-required program successfully, let's assume that only Froome is doping and the rest of the team isn't.
What would be the odds that the rest of the facts (which currently fit the story perfectly if Sky would be doping their GT leaders as a team) would happen as well? (I'm talking about Leinders and Bartolucci coming in, Sky's change of instance regarding transparency/doping, a few selected riders - all from Sky's mountain train - having massive improvements while the rest has normal development, Sky having in the team and later signing several riders with high values in UCI's blood passport suspicious list, etc)
koningjantje wrote:
Froome looks like a good guy to me. If he used doping I would not be surprised though. But for now I believe he is clean.
Dopers are also humans Valverde, for example, is a very nice guy, but a doper nevertheless. For some riders, doping is as common as downloading a cracked software for some people; thus it's not as simple as "bad guys dope" and "nice guys are clean". Isso could probably stay an hour or so naming nice guys who have doped Edited by lluuiiggii on 22-07-2013 00:28
sutty68 wrote:
All i can say on the matter is if Froome is on drugs then what the hell is Quintana on
I have my suspicion towards him as well, but tell me whose evolution seems more plausible:
- Rider A was born at 3000m altitude and has been considered a huge talent ever since crushing the opposition in mountainous U23 races.
- Rider B spent his first years as a pro on domestique duty with no big results beforehand. Then one day, he somehow follows some of the biggest GT contenders on a MTF in the Vuelta.
The next day, he also proves to be an excellent timetriallist, finishing 2nd behind Tony Martin despite having the body shape of an insect. Over the next two years, he continues to improve both climbing and timetrialling.
Pellizotti2 wrote:
The next day, he also proves to be an excellent timetriallist, finishing 2nd behind Tony Martin despite having the body shape of an insect. Over the next two years, he continues to improve both climbing and timetrialling.
Actually not. With Sky's revolutionary training methods, he's fulfilled 100 % of his potential at once, and hasn't really improved (physically) since then.
Talk about strange evolution...
MartijnVDD wrote:
Lol, this thread gives me some kind of underground feel.
"The public opinion seems to agree Froome is clean and whoever states otherwise will be permanently removed from the public scene. But down here, dark matters are discussed and revolution is stirring. We dare voice the public opinion and we dare stand against the oppression of Team Sky, no matter the consequences. We are PCM.daily."
Problem is that a lot of topside people are questioning Froome and even the expert Sky got to check out the data had to come back with a "Sorry, cant say either way".
Now he is going for the WC in Italy, if he wins anything there, meaning does he beat a Tony Martin in what is assumed to be top form. I cant see how anyone can explain that.
Ian Butler wrote:
So now attacking on mountains is also for retards? I'm sure the future of cycling would be golden in the hands of people believing that
Brailsford 2012 was trying to convince everyone that no attacks was proof that cycling was clean.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ian Butler wrote:
So now attacking on mountains is also for retards? I'm sure the future of cycling would be golden in the hands of people believing that
Brailsford 2012 was trying to convince everyone that no attacks was proof that cycling was clean.
Sorry but I don't care what Brailsford says or ever said
Concerning doping, I'm not even listening to him
For me it's just the fact that Froome's attacking, which is great to see and is good for the Tour, is considered a bad thing here. That's what worries me.
Even if he's doping (maybe/probably he is), it's better to do it Froome 2013 than Wiggins 2012, no?
MartijnVDD wrote:
Lol, this thread gives me some kind of underground feel.
"The public opinion seems to agree Froome is clean and whoever states otherwise will be permanently removed from the public scene. But down here, dark matters are discussed and revolution is stirring. We dare voice the public opinion and we dare stand against the oppression of Team Sky, no matter the consequences. We are PCM.daily."
Its only seems that way because its illegal to say Froome is not clean unless you actually have real proof. Court's don't take kindly to slander (however its far to expensive to track down and sue random people on the internet XD)
And LOL at the Quintana. Just him? I don't really think its a co-incidence that since they set up a national center to train clean riders they have a lot of really good riders that arent testing postitive.
Its like the UCI catching drugs cheats. Exposing dopers is just not in their self interest, but looking like they are clean is.
And yeah, Chris Froome isn't a nice guy. He is however very, very smart and manipulative and has the sense to appear as a nice guy in media appearances. He will say what he needs to say ti get the best out of any situation and only that.
Infact, whilst I don't agree with the whole gifting stages thing, I wouldn't surprise me if Froome took advantage of a language deficit with Quintana on Ventoux.
BritPCMFan wrote:
Infact, whilst I don't agree with the whole gifting stages thing, I wouldn't surprise me if Froome took advantage of a language deficit with Quintana on Ventoux.
How would he take advantage?
And don't they both speak English? OR does Quintana only speak Spanish?
MartijnVDD wrote:
Lol, this thread gives me some kind of underground feel.
"The public opinion seems to agree Froome is clean and whoever states otherwise will be permanently removed from the public scene. But down here, dark matters are discussed and revolution is stirring. We dare voice the public opinion and we dare stand against the oppression of Team Sky, no matter the consequences. We are PCM.daily."
Its only seems that way because its illegal to say Froome is not clean unless you actually have real proof. Court's don't take kindly to slander (however its far to expensive to track down and sue random people on the internet XD)
And LOL at the Quintana. Just him? I don't really think its a co-incidence that since they set up a national center to train clean riders they have a lot of really good riders that arent testing postitive.
Its like the UCI catching drugs cheats. Exposing dopers is just not in their self interest, but looking like they are clean is.
Valverde, for example, is a very nice guy, but a doper nevertheless. For some riders, doping is as common as downloading a cracked software for some people; thus it's not as simple as "bad guys dope" and "nice guys are clean". Isso could probably stay an hour or so naming nice guys who have doped 
