Feraess wrote:

Yes. You don't need to be far behind for it to show. It's not just about money, it's about the time and effort spent studying, and that just hasn't taken place until very recently. Professional sports, especially those that have been operating for a long time with the same rules/equipment, and expecially those with relatively niche communities and little money (comparatively speaking), have long been observed to be slow to adapt to new advances. I have no problem believing that teams like Astana and Tinkoff are behind in their training and technology when even football teams with budgets that are orders of magnitude larger than cycling teams are still using poor methods. Particularly when those cycling teams contain and/or are run by proven dopers.


No, it isn't. Froome went from achieving average results in 2007, to being good enough to attract the attention of Sky in 2008, to winning the odd stage in 2009, to working as a domestique at Sky in 2010, to being a good domestique in 2011, to being the top domestique in 2012, to winning the TDF in 2013. His improvements took place over 6 years and coincided with a) moving to a team with better training, b) using better equipment, c) reaching physical peak age, and d) to the best of our knowledge, gradually recovering from a parasitic illness. There are at least 4 good reasons to expect to see improvements in Froome over that time period. Results aren't a great indicator to go by, since riders don't get great individual results when they're working as a domestique.


No, not particularly. Froome comes across as a nice guy whereas Armstrong spectacularly didn't. Armstrong was a sprinter who suddenly did superhuman solo climbing feats, whereas Froome is a climber who climbs a little bit better than others on some days while being supported by a team of good climbers. Also, Froome seems to be making an effort to be more open. I agree that neither Froome nor Armstrong have proved they are clean, but since it's not actually possible to prove that you are clean they also share that with everyone else.


The UCI being inept/corrupt is a separate matter. I agree that it's possible that the UCI is covering up a huge doping scheme at Sky, because I'm sure that cycling becoming more popular in the UK is great for the sport and for bringing money to the UCI. But it's also possible that a corrupt UCI is going after Kreuziger because he dopes and not going after Sky riders because they don't.

Paul23 wrote:
So.....much....text.....will not....read....

deek12345 wrote:
antoine vayer on off the ball tonight should be great listen will post it when its over

Feraess wrote:
Yes. You don't need to be far behind for it to show. It's not just about money, it's about the time and effort spent studying, and that just hasn't taken place until very recently. Professional sports, especially those that have been operating for a long time with the same rules/equipment, and expecially those with relatively niche communities and little money (comparatively speaking), have long been observed to be slow to adapt to new advances. I have no problem believing that teams like Astana and Tinkoff are behind in their training and technology when even football teams with budgets that are orders of magnitude larger than cycling teams are still using poor methods. Particularly when those cycling teams contain and/or are run by proven dopers.

No, it isn't. Froome went from achieving average results in 2007, to being good enough to attract the attention of Sky in 2008, to winning the odd stage in 2009, to working as a domestique at Sky in 2010, to being a good domestique in 2011, to being the top domestique in 2012, to winning the TDF in 2013. His improvements took place over 6 years and coincided with a) moving to a team with better training, b) using better equipment, c) reaching physical peak age, and d) to the best of our knowledge, gradually recovering from a parasitic illness. There are at least 4 good reasons to expect to see improvements in Froome over that time period. Results aren't a great indicator to go by, since riders don't get great individual results when they're working as a domestique.

No, not particularly. Froome comes across as a nice guy whereas Armstrong spectacularly didn't. Armstrong was a sprinter who suddenly did superhuman solo climbing feats, whereas Froome is a climber who climbs a little bit better than others on some days while being supported by a team of good climbers. Also, Froome seems to be making an effort to be more open. I agree that neither Froome nor Armstrong have proved they are clean, but since it's not actually possible to prove that you are clean they also share that with everyone else.

The UCI being inept/corrupt is a separate matter. I agree that it's possible that the UCI is covering up a huge doping scheme at Sky, because I'm sure that cycling becoming more popular in the UK is great for the sport and for bringing money to the UCI. But it's also possible that a corrupt UCI is going after Kreuziger because he dopes and not going after Sky riders because they don't.

FMulleague wrote:
So true. After stage 18 at the tour this year it proves that Froome isn't this so called doper. He struggled slightly. This is probably because as Sky always do is go deep on the first mountain stage.

dark_x2012 wrote:

Yeah but he never was too strong in the final stages. Also Lance also did extremely well on the first mountain stage Froome might as well be clean I don't know but then why doesn't he just publish enough things so I can believe him?

Is it possible that riders like Froome are training harder than other top riders? Of course. Do we know any riders who optimise 100% of their time?

Malkael wrote:

This was an excuse used in Lance Armstrong's time and it is a bit of a fallacy since the only way to really train harder is to use PEDs, cortisone if you want a specific example. Without assistance there are certain natural physiological limitations that if crossed mean you will actual be over-training and it will have a negative effect over time, heck Guido Mukk can tell you all about Rein Taaramae and over-training while at Cofidis ().

Riding a Grand Tour could be considered one giant exercise in over-training due to the way it is structured compared to the training plans the teams put in place to try and ensure their riders are in top physical condition for the race. You don't really ride yourself into peak physical condition by doing two hard weeks in a Grand Tour if you believe the science that informs the expert consensus that forms the ACSM's (American College of Sports Medicine) guidelines.

Feraess wrote:

Yes. You don't need to be far behind for it to show. It's not just about money, it's about the time and effort spent studying, and that just hasn't taken place until very recently. Professional sports, especially those that have been operating for a long time with the same rules/equipment, and expecially those with relatively niche communities and little money (comparatively speaking), have long been observed to be slow to adapt to new advances. I have no problem believing that teams like Astana and Tinkoff are behind in their training and technology when even football teams with budgets that are orders of magnitude larger than cycling teams are still using poor methods. Particularly when those cycling teams contain and/or are run by proven dopers.


No, it isn't. Froome went from achieving average results in 2007, to being good enough to attract the attention of Sky in 2008, to winning the odd stage in 2009, to working as a domestique at Sky in 2010, to being a good domestique in 2011, to being the top domestique in 2012, to winning the TDF in 2013. His improvements took place over 6 years and coincided with a) moving to a team with better training, b) using better equipment, c) reaching physical peak age, and d) to the best of our knowledge, gradually recovering from a parasitic illness. There are at least 4 good reasons to expect to see improvements in Froome over that time period. Results aren't a great indicator to go by, since riders don't get great individual results when they're working as a domestique.


No, not particularly. Froome comes across as a nice guy whereas Armstrong spectacularly didn't. Armstrong was a sprinter who suddenly did superhuman solo climbing feats, whereas Froome is a climber who climbs a little bit better than others on some days while being supported by a team of good climbers. Also, Froome seems to be making an effort to be more open. I agree that neither Froome nor Armstrong have proved they are clean, but since it's not actually possible to prove that you are clean they also share that with everyone else.


The UCI being inept/corrupt is a separate matter. I agree that it's possible that the UCI is covering up a huge doping scheme at Sky, because I'm sure that cycling becoming more popular in the UK is great for the sport and for bringing money to the UCI. But it's also possible that a corrupt UCI is going after Kreuziger because he dopes and not going after Sky riders because they don't.

FMulleague wrote:
That may prove that Froome trained very hard near the tour and didn't start to decline until after stage 10. His stage 10 performance was peak condition so allowed him to win by a massive margin. Now he is tiring from his huge efforts near the end of the tour where Nibali and others are peaking(They were not at peak on stage 10). This even confused me so I'll rephrase it if needed.

dark_x2012 wrote:
I have to disagree with you. I know sky were the first who introduced the relaxed pedalling after the stage as a mean of recuperration but only 2 years later the whole peleton was using the same method. I'm not saying sky doesn't spend huge money on innovations but the other teams are smart and quick enough to implement them.

I personally see nothing more than a descent time trialist and a mediocre rider.

We have a different understanding of nice then. For me both are arrogant assholes, who made a suspiciously quick recovery after an illnesss and went on to become the best. But of them both Armstrong was the one who helped a lot of people fight cancer and also I think he's absolutely right complaining about the cancellation of his titles as the whole peleton was truly doped then and the only reason for that was that USADA were attention-seekers. Also you underestimate the team strength of US Postal.

Yeah but there are too many coincidences. So as to prove UCI follow Sky riders they looked up Tiernan-Locke's blood values and Sky showed "WE FIGHT DOPING" and so did the UCI. What a great commercial and propaganda, too good to be by chance don't you think? And the fact the UCI doesn't even show it acts despite all the suspicions? Is it so damn hard to open some blood passports and release them to the press so that everyone stops if Sky are actually clean? Not to menten the moment when Sky lied about Froome's power data on stage 10 this year. 5.78 W/kg when the others were higher but lost 2mins+, yeah sure

dark_x2012 wrote:
Froome might as well be clean I don't know but then why doesn't he just publish enough things so I can believe him?

Malkael wrote:
This was an excuse used in Lance Armstrong's time and it is a bit of a fallacy since the only way to really train harder is to use PEDs, cortisone if you want a specific example. Without assistance there are certain natural physiological limitations that if crossed mean you will actual be over-training and it will have a negative effect over time, heck Guido Mukk can tell you all about Rein Taaramae and over-training while at Cofidis ().

alexkr00 wrote:
With the weak stage racers in Barloworld and Sky, I'm sure Froome would have been given the opportunity to ride for himself in some races if he would have shown any kind of promises.

Feraess wrote:

Froome did win some races, but Sky aren't exactly renowned for giving riders many chances for individual glory, are they? Wiggins was their designated leader.

FMulleague wrote:

You only have to look as far ass Geraint Thomas. Currently 4th and not allowed to chase Contador to keep his position. Such a pity...

Feraess wrote:

Froome did win some races, but Sky aren't exactly renowned for giving riders many chances for individual glory, are they? Wiggins was their designated leader.