Chris Froome defense/fanboy thread

[firerescuefin]

Ive grown very tired of the Froome bashing threads. Not because they have an alternative opinion, but most of you (not all) post a rehashed version of what you hear the other naysayers post (no original thought..doubt many have even watched)

I've enjoyed the Tour...the Sky bashing has been way over the top...and those of you that compare Sky this year to Postal of the past are ignorant or haven't watched more than about 5 minutes of this Tour.

They have the best funded/ highest payroll amongst grand tour teams and Dave Brailsford is the best in the world at what he does...by a long shot. Porte is the second best rider in this race...and will win a grand tour before it's all over.

Let's examine who he is putting the hammer to. A couple of neutered riders (Valverde/Contador)...who look to be far different riders when they're not running Nitromethane through their veins....a gifted newby in Quintana...and some names from Belkin that have littered the top 20 the last couple years.

Here's an intelligent take by Lemond:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/lemond-calls-for-froome-others-to-release-power-data_295268

The proof will be in that puddin...and will have to be released sooner than later.

The comments regarding him staying seated and maintaining a high cadence up Ventoux were comical (as if that proved anything)...and the Skeletor/taking shots at his riding style are equally tired. What I see is possibly is a transcendent rider..who isn't American...and doesn't have a great story. I get why people are jaded...I wouldn't bet my life that he is clean, but I believe there are outliers...whether its Messi, Lebron, Merckx, Tebow ;) ...you get the point....And before you beat me over the head with his Palmares...Froome started receiving treatment for a parasite about 3 years ago...one whose symptoms resemble mono...its believable IMO. I need to see the numbers...and objective analysis from respectable people who are smart enough to provide it.

Thrashing a bunch of rehabd addicts, and getting raked by the peanut gallery doesn't reach that threshold for me.

[laupsi]

point taken on riding style bashing and the like. in terms of performance, sorry I am jaded and do not believe. for CF and the his lieutenant to keep pounding away at the competition requires a leap of faith I simply cannot muster. and I'm not implying they're the only ones who could be on a program.

[FlashUNC]

So...we shouldn't read anything into Team Sky employing the former Rabobank doctor who was around during the Rasmussen and Dekker doping scandals? Despite Sky professed "not hiring anyone with doping links" policy?

Or that former Sky director Sean Yates was implicated in the PharmStrong doping scandal and left the team suddenly? Not to mention Steven de Jongh also left the team due to similar links?

There's always the eye test: Froome rode away from Contador and Co like Bjarne Riis used to in the mid-90s, putting a minute and change into some of the world's best climbers on one of the toughest mountains at the end of a second week of an incredibly tough stage race. Which has looked pretty much how he's looked the last two years -- bulletproof.

Or what about the story that says he's still not 100% with this African parasite? If he's not 100%, I shudder to think what he ride like when he kicks this bug. Rest of the peloton might as well not race once he's 100%.

[firerescuefin]

point taken on riding style bashing and the like. in terms of performance, sorry I am jaded and do not believe. for CF and the his lieutenant to keep pounding away at the competition requires a leap of faith I simply cannot muster. and I'm not implying they're the only ones who could be on a program.

....and I get all of that. This type (yours) of response isn't what I am referring to above.

[christian]

Postal wearing black, mate. You know it and I know it. (Not suggesting any of the other teams are clean either.)

Sorry, the Geert Leinders thing two years ago made it patently clear they knew which side of the bread was buttered.

[firerescuefin]

So...we shouldn't read anything into Team Sky employing the former Rabobank doctor who was around during the Rasmussen and Dekker doping scandals? Despite Sky professed "not hiring anyone with doping links" policy?

Or that former Sky director Sean Yates was implicated in the PharmStrong doping scandal and left the team suddenly? Not to mention Steven de Jongh also left the team due to similar links?

There's always the eye test: Froome rode away from Contador and Co like Bjarne Riis used to in the mid-90s, putting a minute and change into some of the world's best climbers on one of the toughest mountains at the end of a second week of an incredibly tough stage race. Which has looked pretty much how he's looked the last two years -- bulletproof.

Or what about the story that says he's still not 100% with this African parasite? If he's not 100%, I shudder to think what he ride like when he kicks this bug. Rest of the peloton might as well not race once he's 100%.

Lots of innuendo in there flash. He rides away from riders whose past performances of note were drug enhanced...wow..he for sure is guilty. Sky has been firing these guys once its out publicly...just as everyone else has (yes..they knew about it before hand...and it was strictly a PR move) Read up a little more in that parasite. Sorry Flash...need to see some data.

[Lewis Moon]

I'll wait and see on Froome re: pharmacological enhancement. I really hope he aint another Pharmstrong.

...but I can still hate him and Sky, just like I hate the Lakers and Kobe.

I'm pulling for Nairo.

[phcollard]

Can we still give him negative points for style and panache? :bike:

[firerescuefin]

Postal wearing black, mate. You know it and I know it. (Not suggesting any of the other teams are clean either.)

Sorry, the Geert Leinders thing two years ago made it patently clear they knew which side of the bread was buttered.

I suspect it...don't know it...I know having the best people and hiring the best riders is good for something. The reality is we thought we knew what real looked like...and haven't for 20+ years. Get the skepticism...tired of many of the takes.

[MattTuck]

I read that Lemond article also. Who knows where it will lead.

In terms of Froome specifically. My perspective on doping is that there's a significant likelihood that any given rider is doping. Not Froome specifically, but any rider. There are controls in place, maybe they catch 100% of those that dope, maybe they catch less than 1%. It's the system, and while it could be improved, it is what we've got.

When people are popped, they do their time and come back. I have to believe that as long as people have done their time, that fans will stand behind them when they return. Same goes for giving people the benefit of the doubt before they're popped.

This is a bit like any criminal justice issue. Do you want people to get convicted, do their time and come back rehabilitated with the chance to thrive? or do you want criminals to be branded as criminals for the rest of their lives? Or even branded as criminals because they are similar in some way to past criminals?

In general, I believe healthy skepticism is a good thing. Blind faith or guilt by similarity are not really helpful, and don't move the conversation forward. I'd like to see more out of competition random testing personally.

I really don't have a strong feeling on Froome's body or position. I tried to ride like he does on my ride last night. Doesn't really work for me, but maybe there is something weird with his shoulders/elbows. Other than that, I have serious doubts about the wisdom/health of being that skinny. As I've said before (and we've seen other riders in Giro) In perfect warm weather, I think being that skinny is ok. A few days of cold rain would compromise him. That is a calculation that the rider, doctors and team can make based on their expectations for weather in July in France. So far, it is looking like a good calculation for Sky. I don't think that will always be the case.

[Vientomas]

I suspect it...don't know it...I know having the best people and hiring the best riders is good for something. The reality is we thought we knew what real looked like...and haven't for 20+ years. Get the skepticism...tired of many of the takes.

Frommey was not the "best rider" until he went to Sky. Sky hired a mediocre rider when they hired Frommey and he was miraculously turned into the "best rider".

That is a fact, not speculation.

[PQJ]

I'd trot out the whole "duck" thingie but it is also a tired trope.

FRF - you are 100% entitled to enjoy the tour and believe in Froome; we are 100% entitled to question his performances. It's entertainment, after all. But more and more he is looking like a taller, ganglier Lance. If he is clean, that sucks for him and shame on us.

I've seen better GC battles, points competition battles and mountain climber jersey battles. But it has still been a fun 3-week diversion.

[christian]

Agree it's tired to complain about his riding style, btw.

[Louis]

It seems to me that both defenders and detractors here can only base their opinions on the information that's available for all to see, nothing more, nothing less. No one here has access to secret Sky training data.

Having said that, what we are currently seeing looks a heck of a lot like what we've seen in the recent past, which bodes ill for those hoping for a clean sport.

[firerescuefin]

Frommey was not the "best rider" until he went to Sky. Sky hired a mediocre rider when they hired Frommey and he was miraculously turned into the "best rider".

That is a fact, not speculation.


Please re read the initial post befor you drop "fact" on me.

[firerescuefin]

It seems to me that both defenders and detractors here can only base their opinions on the information that's available for all to see, nothing more, nothing less. No one here has access to secret Sky training data.

Having said that, what we are currently seeing looks a heck of a lot like what we've seen in the recent past, which bodes ill for those hoping for a clean sport.

Agree 1000%

[phcollard]

On a related side note : anybody following the official Tour de France on FB? They post the news of the day and every time it's about Froome comments are either "doped" or "shut up" (replied to the former). Pathetic and depressing.

On the other hand I find this VeloNews article (http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/commentary-is-chris-froome-just-too-good-to-be-true_295224) spot on. For a change :)

[sante pollastri]

Ive grown very tired of the Froome bashing threads. Not because they have an alternative opinion, but most of you (not all) post a rehashed version of what you hear the other naysayers post (no original thought..doubt many have even watched)

I've enjoyed the Tour...the Sky bashing has been way over the top...and those of you that compare Sky this year to Postal of the past are ignorant or haven't watched more than about 5 minutes of this Tour.

They have the best funded/ highest payroll amongst grand tour teams and Dave Brailsford is the best in the world at what he does...by a long shot. Porte is the second best rider in this race...and will win a grand tour before it's all over.

Let's examine who he is putting the hammer to. A couple of neutered riders (Valverde/Contador)...who look to be far different riders when they're not running Nitromethane through their veins....a gifted newby in Quintana...and some names from Belkin that have littered the top 20 the last couple years.

Here's an intelligent take by Lemond:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/lemond-calls-for-froome-others-to-release-power-data_295268

The proof will be in that puddin...and will have to be released sooner than later.

The comments regarding him staying seated and maintaining a high cadence up Ventoux were comical (as if that proved anything)...and the Skeletor/taking shots at his riding style are equally tired. What I see is possibly is a transcendent rider..who isn't American...and doesn't have a great story. I get why people are jaded...I wouldn't bet my life that he is clean, but I believe there are outliers...whether its Messi, Lebron, Merckx, Tebow ;) ...you get the point....And before you beat me over the head with his Palmares...Froome started receiving treatment for a parasite about 3 years ago...one whose symptoms resemble mono...its believable IMO. I need to see the numbers...and objective analysis from respectable people who are smart enough to provide it.

Thrashing a bunch of rehabd addicts, and getting raked by the peanut gallery doesn't reach that threshold for me.

very well said.
+1 Froome fan.

[A1A]

All I know is that when I saw Froome ride away from Contador my first thought was to have T-shirts made up with Contador's face on the front with

"Where's the Beef!"

printed below in large letters!

[Jaq]

Innocent till proven guilty is my (guardedly optimistic) response to conjecture. So God bless the kid; hope he keeps doing great & is clean. I choose to think he is, and regard him as what's possible for a human being to accomplish. That acceleration atop Ventoux was nothing short of jaw-dropping.

As for Lemond, the only thing that concerns me about him is... WHEN DID HE GET SO DAMNED FAT!?!

Seriously. That guy is HUGE. I mean, I get that once you're out of the pro peloton, you can eat whatever the hell you want and that's a helluva temptation after years of starving yourself like a twiggy supermodel (another profession where skinny + drugs = $$$), but man, that guy overdid it. Seriously, Lemond should be nicknamed the Cannibal, not Merckx. Guy looks like he ate Hinault.

[sante pollastri]

Frommey was not the "best rider" until he went to Sky. Sky hired a mediocre rider when they hired Frommey and he was miraculously turned into the "best rider".

That is a fact, not speculation.

Froome was not the best rider because others were doped.
Now Contador and Valverde are not doped,and Froome wins.
But he wins thanks to his superlative training,high cadence isn't natural,has to be trained.

[laupsi]

I am not a doc but perhaps Lemond is taking medicinal steroids for some ailment? His does not look like a case of simple over eating/lack of activity.

[PQJ]

Re: "outliers," in sports demanding a high level of skill, sure there are outliers, people who are just born with a natural talent far exceeding most everyone else. Golf, soccer, tennis, basketball, etc., are those kinds of sports. On the other hand, in sports that are primarily a function of endurance or strength, the differences are less and the gains more marginal. As humans adapt/evolve and training methods improve, sure, gains are eked out. In milliseconds, sometimes seconds. In a sport like cycling where you're beating the competition by minutes, and not seconds, I don't buy the outlier hypothesis.

Poetic justice would be Contador being declared the 2013 winner next year.

[Vientomas]

Please re read the initial post befor you drop "fact" on me.

Done. What's next?

[1centaur]

Nobody has dominated a Tour de France like that who was not a doper, and nobody has accelerated away from a top climber like that on a mountain like Ventoux who was not a doper. That statistical sample is large.

If Froome is the greatest cyclist in the history of the world, then you will turn out to be right. But in an odds contest, based on the evidence, you'd get low odds.

And BTW, nothing says Contador is not still juiced to some extent.

And the Brailsford argument is weak. He's churned a bunch of guys through that program and not turned them into superstars. Same training methodology and data analysis available to all, but Froome is light years away from most of his teammates. Clearly there is something else going on with Froome, and there are two choices: his natural physiology, or the way his natural physiology responds to doping. Almost every bitter, weary cynic on every cycling board in the world would rather it was the former, but have reason to believe the latter until proven wrong by the passage of time.

[norcalbiker]

People can say whatever they want to say. It's all opinion until it's proven guilty.

My opinion is no one ever wins the tour clean anymore.

[Jaq]

I am not a doc but perhaps Lemond is taking medicinal steroids for some ailment? His does not look like a case of simple over eating/lack of activity.

I hope so. Probably pretty catty of me to make comments about him without knowing more. I actually got to ride with him a couple times one winter back in the '80s. Well, I rode with some guys who were friends of guys who were riding with him miles ahead of us. But we all started out together.

It's truly eye-opening the differences between us mortals and the top 1% of the sport. The guys I was riding with were all hard-core, Cat-1 & 2 at the time, and they couldn't hold a candle to Lemond. It was truly humbling.

[KJMUNC]

Sorry Flash...need to see some data.

Speaking of data, let's see Froome's data from this Tour. I get the fear of misinterpretation, but given his complete dominance of the Tour on both climbs AND TTs, the speculation isn't going to go away. It's incredibly naive to think otherwise in a sport where no one has achieved such dominance in recent or (even not-so recent) history without some level of doping. His data is either going to support Brailsford's theory that he can climb at reasonable wattage for long periods of time, or his numbers are going to be suspect.

Whether or not you think his peers in this race are washed up or not, even post-juice, they are still the best stage racers in the world and he is making everyone look like a second class Pro.

I can't imagine anyone who has been watching cycling for any extended period of time NOT being suspect of what he's doing, just purely based on the fact that no-one else has done what he's going without a long track record of demonstrated successes/dominance in other races (e.g. Merckx, Hinault, Lemond). Evans didn't dominate during his 2011 victory like Froome has and he has an incredibly extensive record of cycling success prior to 2011. Every other TdF winner back to 1990 is highly suspect given they all occurred during the EPO-era. Froome has some decent results in low-level races prior to 2011 but never dominated anything, then joins SKY and BOOM.....he gets 2nd in the Vuelta, then 2nd in the Tour and now sits in yellow three short years later.

He shouldn't be shocked if people question his sudden dominance, as you don't just come out of no-where and dominate the Tour without some help.

[Joachim]

http://www.outdoorblog.it/post/127387/froome-piu-forte-di-tutti-ma-lontano-dai-record-del-tour-de-france

Translate and read.

[laupsi]

http://www.outdoorblog.it/post/127387/froome-piu-forte-di-tutti-ma-lontano-dai-record-del-tour-de-france

Translate and read.

no translation software. any takers on doing the task?

[PQJ]

no translation software. any takers on doing the task?

translate.google.com

[laupsi]

no translation software. any takers on doing the task?

was able to translate w/Bing, got the gist of it.

[Lewis Moon]

no translation software. any takers on doing the task?

Bablefish is your friend.

Mentioned gene doping. Scary.

[firerescuefin]

Done. What's next?

Go play a professional sport with a parasite for a couple and get back with me. If you have secret knowledge....I'd love to hear it.

[regularguy412]

I'm neither a Froome fan nor a Froome antagonist. However regarding his bike position and riding style, I'd venture a guess that this is the position in which he learned to ride years ago and this is the position in which he feels most comfortable. Likely that he was on a too-small bike for too long -- elbows out so his knees don't hit his elbows and saddle low because it 'feels' right. Plus,, the guy 'is' a bit gangly. Regardless, whatever he's doing, one can't dispute that it works for him.

Mike in AR:beer:

[Vientomas]

Go play a professional sport with a parasite for a couple and get back with me. If you have secret knowledge....I'd love to hear it.

I simply pointed out that your statement that Sky hired the best riders (Frommey) was false based on Frommey's lack luster results when hired by Sky and that Frommey only became the "Best Rider" after being hired by Sky. My conclusion does not require the acquisition on any "secret knowledge". Frommey's palmares, or lack thereof prior to Sky, are available for all to see on-line. Here is a link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Froome

I'll one up you - How 'bout I tell you a story of a professional athlete with cancer who became the "best rider" after returning from cancer treatment? I have some not so secret knowledge I can share with you about that. Would you love to hear it, or would you like to make another ridiculous suggestion?

[pbarry]

Geoff, agree with your OP all the way. More threads on the forum about doping than the actual race. Some great stages have been missed entirely in GD.

[Lewis Moon]

I'm neither a Froome fan nor a Froome antagonist. However regarding his bike position and riding style, I'd venture a guess that this is the position in which he learned to ride years ago and this is the position in which he feels most comfortable. Likely that he was on a too-small bike for too long -- elbows out so his knees don't hit his elbows and saddle low because it 'feels' right. Plus,, the guy 'is' a bit gangly. Regardless, whatever he's doing, one can't dispute that it works for him.

Mike in AR:beer:

My saddle height is a couple of cm+ lower than what would come up using any of the calculators out there. Feels good. We are all biomechanically different.

[cfox]

Does Contador look like he did in 2009? No. But I'd like to challenge the notion that he's "washed up." If the theory is he cleaned up his act after he was caught in 2010, then why was he able to utterly dominate the hardest GT parcours in our lifetime, the 2011 Giro? During that Giro the UCI was appealing his dismissal of doping charges; are we to presume he was doped to the max during that time? After not being able to walk for a week or two, he went on and finished 5th in the 2011 TDF. Then he was banned. Then 2 weeks after his ban was up, he won the first GT he rode in. Hmm, sounds pretty washed up to me. He really only looks washed up vs. the guy who was dq'd from the 2010 Giro for being towed up the Mortirolo by a motorcycle.

[pbarry]

Innocent till proven guilty is my (guardedly optimistic) response to conjecture. So God bless the kid; hope he keeps doing great & is clean. I choose to think he is, and regard him as what's possible for a human being to accomplish. That acceleration atop Ventoux was nothing short of jaw-dropping.

As for Lemond, the only thing that concerns me about him is... WHEN DID HE GET SO DAMNED FAT!?!

Seriously. That guy is HUGE. I mean, I get that once you're out of the pro peloton, you can eat whatever the hell you want and that's a helluva temptation after years of starving yourself like a twiggy supermodel (another profession where skinny + drugs = $$$), but man, that guy overdid it. Seriously, Lemond should be nicknamed the Cannibal, not Merckx. Guy looks like he ate Hinault.

Greg can't ride or exercise except recreationally/occasionally due to the 60plus lead pellets still in his body from the hunting accident. The fitter he gets, his body starts to metabolize the lead. Diet is something else, but don't expect GL to be fit. Would that all our heros remained as they were at their peak, as we remember them..

[PQJ]

Random musings here:

1. Gary Player looks pretty damn good for his age. Anyone see the recent naked pictures of him? (No, I'm not a voyeur - he made them public for all the world to see.) Gary is also a believer in hard work, exercise and good diet. I believe Gary. As a young tike, I had the privilege of setting foot inside his beachside apartment in South Africa. If only I could have appreciated then the gravitas of the person in whose presence I was as I would now. Oh well.

2. In fairness to Froome's pre-sensational palmares, Roger Federer was an average pro before he become Roger Federer. And nothing much was expected of Tom Brady before he became Tom Brady. Still, those are 2 sports where I believe that god-given talent (read: skill) matter more than cycling. Don't get me wrong here. I love cycling and they're amazing athletes ("to the cynics and skeptics and words words words"). And Chris seems like a genuinely nice guy. But I just don't believe him.

3. Greg has put on a lot of weight. The lead pellet hypothesis makes sense. Given what's happened to Greg, I'm concerned what I'll look like in 20 years. But I don't have any lead pellets in me (yet), so maybe I'll be ok. Time is the fire within which we all burn. So sad, so true.

4. We do talk about doping too much. Can you blame us? It's one of the reasons I hate doping in sport so much. Now, if you ask me about recreational dope, I have a different opinion. I'll keep that offline.

5. Can anyone tell I'm bored today?

6. Thanks for reading.

[FlashUNC]

Lots of innuendo in there flash. He rides away from riders whose past performances of note were drug enhanced...wow..he for sure is guilty. Sky has been firing these guys once its out publicly...just as everyone else has (yes..they knew about it before hand...and it was strictly a PR move) Read up a little more in that parasite. Sorry Flash...need to see some data.

So how about this....Froome ascent of Ventoux took 59 minutes -- the fastest non-disqualified ascent on record.

It was four minutes slower than doped to the gills Iban Mayo's record of 55 minutes, but Mayo's ascent was simply a 21k time trial in the Dauphine, it didn't come at the end of the longest stage of the Tour.

He absolutely crushed the world's best climbers by minutes in that ascent -- which is again the fastest on record.

Assuming Froome rode the entirety of Sunday's course to the start of that 2004 Dauphine Time Trial, then rode the TT just as he rode on Sunday's stage, he would have finished in the top 15.

The finishing times for the 2004 race that Froome would have rivaled are a who's who of mid-decade dopers:

http://www.montventouxwebcam.com/pdf/ttresults.pdf

Either he pulled off the greatest single climb we've ever witnessed in cycling history, or he's on something.

[BCS]

Greg can't ride or exercise except recreationally/occasionally due to the 60plus lead pellets still in his body from the hunting accident. The fitter he gets, his body starts to metabolize the lead.

Huh???
The lead is "unmetabolized" at a recreational pace but changes at higher wattage??

[Joachim]

Huh???
The lead is "unmetabolized" at a recreational pace but changes at higher wattage??

Just a possibility:

Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Aug;107(8):657-62.

Effects of weight loss and exercise on the distribution of lead and essential trace elements in rats with prior lead exposure.
Han S, Li W, Jamil U, Dargan K, Orefice M, Kemp FW, Bogden JD.
Source
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, UMDNJ--New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey 07103-2714, USA.

Abstract

We studied the effects of weight loss and non-weight-bearing exercise (swimming) on blood and organ lead and essential metal concentrations in rats with prior lead exposure. Nine-week-old female Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 37) received lead acetate in their drinking water for 2 weeks, followed by a 4-day latency period without lead exposure. Rats were then randomly assigned to one of six treatment groups: weight maintenance with ad libitum feeding, moderate weight loss with 20% food restriction, and substantial weight loss with 40% food restriction, either with or without swimming. Blood lead concentrations were measured weekly. The rats were euthanized after a 4-week period of food restriction, and the brain, liver, kidneys, quadriceps muscle, lumbar spinal column bones, and femur were harvested for analysis for lead, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Both swimming and nonswimming rats fed restricted diets had consistently higher blood lead concentrations than the ad libitum controls. Rats in the substantial weight loss group had higher organ lead concentrations than rats in the weight maintenance group. Rats in the moderate weight loss group had intermediate values. There were no significant differences in blood and organ lead concentrations between the swimming and nonswimming groups. Organ iron concentrations increased with weight loss, but those of the other metals studied did not. Weight loss also increased hematocrits and decreased bone density of the nonswimming rats. The response of lead stores to weight loss was similar to that of iron stores because both were conserved during food restriction in contrast to decreased stores of the other metals studied. It is possible that weight loss, especially rapid weight loss, could result in lead toxicity in people with a history of prior excessive lead exposure.

[BCS]

So based on this "study" Lemond can train as hard as he likes as long as he stays fat.

Sounds like my current plan;)


Just a possibility:

Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Aug;107(8):657-62.

Effects of weight loss and exercise on the distribution of lead and essential trace elements in rats with prior lead exposure.
Han S, Li W, Jamil U, Dargan K, Orefice M, Kemp FW, Bogden JD.
Source
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, UMDNJ--New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey 07103-2714, USA.

Abstract

We studied the effects of weight loss and non-weight-bearing exercise (swimming) on blood and organ lead and essential metal concentrations in rats with prior lead exposure. Nine-week-old female Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 37) received lead acetate in their drinking water for 2 weeks, followed by a 4-day latency period without lead exposure. Rats were then randomly assigned to one of six treatment groups: weight maintenance with ad libitum feeding, moderate weight loss with 20% food restriction, and substantial weight loss with 40% food restriction, either with or without swimming. Blood lead concentrations were measured weekly. The rats were euthanized after a 4-week period of food restriction, and the brain, liver, kidneys, quadriceps muscle, lumbar spinal column bones, and femur were harvested for analysis for lead, calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, and zinc using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Both swimming and nonswimming rats fed restricted diets had consistently higher blood lead concentrations than the ad libitum controls. Rats in the substantial weight loss group had higher organ lead concentrations than rats in the weight maintenance group. Rats in the moderate weight loss group had intermediate values. There were no significant differences in blood and organ lead concentrations between the swimming and nonswimming groups. Organ iron concentrations increased with weight loss, but those of the other metals studied did not. Weight loss also increased hematocrits and decreased bone density of the nonswimming rats. The response of lead stores to weight loss was similar to that of iron stores because both were conserved during food restriction in contrast to decreased stores of the other metals studied. It is possible that weight loss, especially rapid weight loss, could result in lead toxicity in people with a history of prior excessive lead exposure.

[chengher87]

I've seen some performances where I thought, "hmmm...he's looking in form, could be doping, luck or opportunity".

Examples would be OTOMH:

Nibali at the 2010 Vuelta when he was gifted the win after Anton's crash
Pereiro at the 2006 Tour when he was given a LARGE lead in a breakaway and of course Landis' DQ
Lemond at the 1989 Tour because the last stage was a time-trial and not celebratory
Pantani at the 1994 Tour because there were 4 massive mountain stages followed by an uphill time trial, all playing to Pantani's strength
Wiggins at the 2012 Tour, he won time trials and survived the climbs, even being shown up by Froome a few times

Then there are those that are just beyond belief.

Armstrong when he came back and I'll never forget Sherwen's quote "It's really amazing that he's lost all this weight and yet he's still got that power, that acceleration".
Indurain's time trial where Lemond got absolutely destroyed
Cobo at the 2011 Vuelta where he destroyed everyone on the climb up to Angliru
Cunego at the 2004 Giro where he won 4 stages very convincingly
Di Luca at the 2009 Giro, where he seemingly had the energy to attack anytime, anywhere
Froome at the last two Tours, he has not had a bad day ever.

I'm under the innocent until proven guilty camp, but eve fanboys have to admit that what they are seeing from Froome is something else.

[laupsi]

Joachim,

Based on your professional experience and using your analytical mind, studying only the facts as they are, in your opinion, is CF riding as though he's on a program?

[harryblack]

Ive grown very tired of the Froome bashing threads. Not because they have an alternative opinion, but most of you (not all) post a rehashed version of what you hear the other naysayers post (no original thought..doubt many have even watched)

Please. Maybe Froome used Tommy D's off-season core strength program and that's why he's been so dominant season long? Tommy D's lighting up this Tour himself, the "elan" he showed in your "epic" Colorado stage race last year has carried over and then some!!

FACT: historically, there is ZERO POINT ZERO reason to believe Froome is clean. if thinking otherwise helps you enjoy the broadcasts/streams there's no harm in that but to take the position that the skeptics are mere cynics or spoilsports is either an act of willful ignorance or just plain silly.

Glad to see Froome tied into Lemond, however, as Saint Greg fanboys never tire of washing their hero's feet. He would have been a GREAT president too!

[firerescuefin]

I'm under the innocent until proven guilty camp, but eve fanboys have to admit that what they are seeing from Froome is something else.

I fully admit it...different than just trashing the guy...this should be his third GT win...that can support/defend ones position depending on your POV.

UNC...one of the fastest ascents ever..incredible...yes, you realize those ascents dont take place in a vacuum..right. Contador said he was off...2nd place says he was off...

I'm repeating myself, but I want to see the data...maybe the guy is amazing...i suspect that as training/recovery techniques will continue to Get better over time. Maybe the guy is ET...maybe Brailsford thinks he's so smart that he can create the "cream and the clear" and never get caught...(which would actually make him quite stupid). When they release the power data...if it is ET...then they better be prepared to explain it rather than pull a rabbit out of their @ss.

[firerescuefin]

Please. Maybe Froome used Tommy D's off-season core strength program and that's why he's been so dominant season long? Tommy D's lighting up this Tour himself, the "elan" he showed in your "epic" Colorado stage race last year has carried over and then some!!

FACT: historically, there is ZERO POINT ZERO reason to believe Froome is clean. if thinking otherwise helps you enjoy the broadcasts/streams there's no harm in that but to take the position that the skeptics are mere cynics or spoilsports is either an act of willful ignorance or just plain silly.

Glad to see Froome tied into Lemond, however, as Saint Greg fanboys never tire of washing their hero's feet. He would have been a GREAT president too!


HarryB...thought you were banned or kidnaped by Aliens. Looking forward to you objectively breaking it down for me than spouting your typical rhetorical venom.

[firerescuefin]

Joachim,

Based on your professional experience and using your analytical mind, studying only the facts as they are, in your opinion, is CF riding as though he's on a program?

Good call...Joachim actually has the intellectual watts (enhanced or natural) :cool: to provide an objective answer.

[Joachim]

Joachim,

Based on your professional experience and using your analytical mind, studying only the facts as they are, in your opinion, is CF riding as though he's on a program?

I am currently at 65/35 with the 65 towards no. The thing is that EVERYTHING is currently speculation and in science we only speculate before getting the data and that is, like you probably know, called a hypothesis. Then we test it and adjust (or not) our hypothesis and move on to the next set of experiments. In the case of Froome, I would like to see more data, while keeping in mind that his bilharzia has only be diagnosed and treated fairly recently. He really only started performing better after a couple of very harsh treatments. I, like Corti (DS for the Pro Conti team, Columbia) saw glimpses of Froome's talent in South Africa, during the Giro del Capo when he was riding for Barloworld, but still undiagnosed.

With regards to more data, I would like to see VAM's from the mountain stages in the Alps, power data, REAL weight data (not the speculative data) and blood values. Blood values taken in the morning AND evening on the rest day will be important (happened to Movistar that I know of) as well as blood values during the Tour. The VAM from Ventoux already showed that it's not a record and lower than the "dark years", but we need more. Given that there can be a few percent error in VAM calculation due to environment and that a small percentage difference at high VAM's can lead to doping vs non-doping accusations, multiple data points are needed. Not just for VAM, but also the other variables I mentioned. We should thank LA for giving us data that show how the VAM's of a doped rider.

There is the possibility that Sky is using something, but the above-mentioned variables (when all taken together) are better at providing a picture than testing for a substance. Sorry for the vague answer, but there are so many factors during a race that determine "how" someone rides that its just too hard to say "he is riding like he is doped". Look at Di Luca at the Giro, no racing in the legs and suddenly attacking and in the break the whole day. That is how someone rides that is doped. The 9 seconds of today's TT is basically taking one corner slow, so for me, Contador and Froome were not different. I have not seen VAM's for either of them for today, but I am sure there are armchair scientists calculating it as we speak.

We have all heard of the "no detail is insignificant" of Sky's approach. They even take their own mattresses to the Tour, just to improve sleep quality and not induce any unknowns.

[PQJ]

Geoff - I hate to go where I'm about to (because of my history with this question and another forum member) but I ask this question in all earnestness, with pure good faith curiosity, and with no intent of any kind to in the future mock, ridicule or somehow say gotcha (which I absolutely will not and would never do):

Based on the sport's history since forever and in particular its recent history, and as someone who is more than just a casual follower, do you really think (and right now we're all just thinking as none of us actually know) - deep down, in your heart - that Froome is clean?*

* "Yes" is a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way, even if I don't agree with it.

[laupsi]

thanks Joachim, wouldn't have expected anything less:)

[firerescuefin]

Geoff - I hate to go where I'm about to (because of my history with this question and another forum member) but I ask this question in all earnestness, with pure good faith curiosity, and with no intent of any kind to in the future mock, ridicule or somehow say gotcha (which I absolutely will not and would never do):

Based on the sport's history since forever and in particular its recent history, and as someone who is more than just a casual follower, do you really think (and right now we're all just thinking as none of us actually know) - deep down, in your heart - that Froome is clean?*

* "Yes" is a perfectly acceptable answer, by the way, even if I don't agree with it.


That's a fair question...if I was a betting man..No...I'm pretty close to Joachim's odds... But a 20-25% chance in my mind doesn't merit trashing the guy...unless you know better (objectively/physiologically...like this is your field)

[FlashUNC]

I fully admit it...different than just trashing the guy...this should be his third GT win...that can support/defend ones position depending on your POV.

UNC...one of the fastest ascents ever..incredible...yes, you realize those ascents dont take place in a vacuum..right. Contador said he was off...2nd place says he was off...

I'm repeating myself, but I want to see the data...maybe the guy is amazing...i suspect that as training/recovery techniques will continue to Get better over time. Maybe the guy is ET...maybe Brailsford thinks he's so smart that he can create the "cream and the clear" and never get caught...(which would actually make him quite stupid). When they release the power data...if it is ET...then they better be prepared to explain it rather than pull a rabbit out of their @ss.

But we're not talking about Contador or Quintana or anyone else. Froome had the fastest ascent ever of Ventoux that hasn't been disqualified. That time is only comparable with known dopers and their now excluded times, and was about as fast as known dopers can ascend the thing in a time trial, much less at the end of a 200k stage.

If he's doing it clean, its simply the greatest single day performance we've ever seen. Out of a guy who was totally off the radar three years ago.

I want whatever was in those Sky mussette bags at 10k to go, that's for sure. Would help get me up Pilot Mtn a bit quicker.

[Joachim]

But we're not talking about Contador or Quintana or anyone else. Froome had the fastest ascent ever of Ventoux that hasn't been disqualified. That time is only comparable with known dopers and their now excluded times, and was about as fast as known dopers can ascend the thing in a time trial, much less at the end of a 200k stage.

If he's doing it clean, its simply the greatest single day performance we've ever seen. Out of a guy who was totally off the radar three years ago.

I want whatever was in those Sky mussette bags at 10k to go, that's for sure. Would help get me up Pilot Mtn a bit quicker.

Like I have referenced before, Froome's Ventoux VAM was not a record (his estimated power to weight ratio was 6.1):

http://www.outdoorblog.it/post/127387/froome-piu-forte-di-tutti-ma-lontano-dai-record-del-tour-de-france

[cfox]

I am currently at 65/35 with the 65 towards no. The thing is that EVERYTHING is currently speculation and in science we only speculate before getting the data and that is, like you probably know, called a hypothesis. Then we test it and adjust (or not) our hypothesis and move on to the next set of experiments. In the case of Froome, I would like to see more data, while keeping in mind that his bilharzia has only be diagnosed and treated fairly recently. He really only started performing better after a couple of very harsh treatments. I, like Corti (DS for the Pro Conti team, Columbia) saw glimpses of Froome's talent in South Africa, during the Giro del Capo when he was riding for Barloworld, but still undiagnosed.

With regards to more data, I would like to see VAM's from the mountain stages in the Alps, power data, REAL weight data (not the speculative data) and blood values. Blood values taken in the morning AND evening on the rest day will be important (happened to Movistar that I know of) as well as blood values during the Tour. The VAM from Ventoux already showed that it's not a record and lower than the "dark years", but we need more. Given that there can be a few percent error in VAM calculation due to environment and that a small percentage difference at high VAM's can lead to doping vs non-doping accusations, multiple data points are needed. Not just for VAM, but also the other variables I mentioned. We should thank LA for giving us data that show how the VAM's of a doped rider.

There is the possibility that Sky is using something, but the above-mentioned variables (when all taken together) are better at providing a picture than testing for a substance. Sorry for the vague answer, but there are so many factors during a race that determine "how" someone rides that its just too hard to say "he is riding like he is doped". Look at Di Luca at the Giro, no racing in the legs and suddenly attacking and in the break the whole day. That is how someone rides that is doped. The 9 seconds of today's TT is basically taking one corner slow, so for me, Contador and Froome were not different. I have not seen VAM's for either of them for today, but I am sure there are armchair scientists calculating it as we speak.

We have all heard of the "no detail is insignificant" of Sky's approach. They even take their own mattresses to the Tour, just to improve sleep quality and not induce any unknowns.

With all of the data you mention in the second paragraph, my nine year old son could determine if someone were doping.

[firerescuefin]

But we're not talking about Contador or Quintana or anyone else. Froome had the fastest ascent ever of Ventoux that hasn't been disqualified. That time is only comparable with known dopers and their now excluded times, and was about as fast as known dopers can ascend the thing in a time trial, much less at the end of a 200k stage.

If he's doing it clean, its simply the greatest single day performance we've ever seen. Out of a guy who was totally off the radar three years ago.

I want whatever was in those Sky mussette bags at 10k to go, that's for sure. Would help get me up Pilot Mtn a bit quicker.

My Vacuum comment refers to weather...behavior(s) of other riders, place of stage in the tour..etc.

[Joachim]

With all of the data you mention in the second paragraph, my nine year old son could determine if someone were doping.

..

[Dave B]

That's a fair question...if I was a betting man..No...I'm pretty close to Joachim's odds... But a 20-25% chance in my mind doesn't merit trashing the guy...unless you know better (objectively/physiologically...like this is your field)

Bro, I tend to want him to be clean. I want to see someone who is just that good kick some arse. Now, if he is doping, ok it could make sense. I guess I wonder why it couldn't be all of the little things that have added up to something great. I have never had to turn myself inside out like these guys do.

This is a stretch a very big stretch, but I have always done well at recovering. My old lifting partner said I was like Nascar. I could completely destroy myself for a few hours of lifting and running and the next day do it again. He was like formula one. One little ache or pain and he would be done with that particular muscle group for ages.

Maybe Froome has the ability to recover fully or close to it between stages.

I dont' know maybe he is drinking the new Mt. Dew Kick Starts. Works for me! ;)

[laupsi]

With all of the data you mention in the second paragraph, my nine year old son could determine if someone were doping.

I think Joachim's determining factors are not something any of us can ever expect to see. I also believe Joachim is sticking to his analytical guns, indicating he's witnessed Froome perform at an elite level in the past and CF is w/in his natural ability based on what has happened thus far in this tour.

That I understand Joachim's position does not imply however that I agree w/him or w/Geoff. My sticking point is how Froome is beating a pure and natural climber at his own game, and after 2 weeks of hard/hot racing.

My own racing experience, not that I am now or ever was an elite pro, has taught me one doesn't repeatedly beat the strong guy at his own game no matter how fit the aggressor. This is all I need until I see something definitive/real/concrete to change my mind. Yes, based on what he's done, CF is guilty until proven innocent in my court.

[PQJ]

That's a fair question...if I was a betting man..No...I'm pretty close to Joachim's odds... But a 20-25% chance in my mind doesn't merit trashing the guy...unless you know better (objectively/physiologically...like this is your field)

Fair enough and thanks for answering. Thanks also to Joachim for another interesting perspective. I think Joachim is tending 65 towards not doping and 35 towards doping, but maybe I'm misinterpreting.

[cfox]

I think Joachim's determining factors are not something any of us can ever expect to see.



My somewhat snarky comment was in reference to this^^. The data he'd like to see is a virtual Christmas list that many, many people would love to get their hands on, but never will. It's also a list that you needn't be a scientist to get the gist as to whether someone is geared up or not.

[acorn_user]

"He shouldn't be shocked if people question his sudden dominance, as you don't just come out of no-where and dominate the Tour without some help."

And this is exactly the problem with this thread. Froome did not come out of nowhere. He looked really good at last year's tdf. He did a great Olympic TT. He did a pretty good Vuelta in 2012 before fatigue (those bad days someone referred to) and Contador set in. He did a very good Vuelta in 2011, including climbing extremely well with a high cadence and a not-exactly-Charly-Gaul style.

Mick Rogers said that Froome is maybe 2% better than last year, and he should know. Team Sky isn't even the best team in the race this year. I think Movistar and Saxo are both stronger (so does Vaughters). What Sky does have is a race leader who is in a bit better shape than the other GC guys, and a really good domestique to do a lot of the chasing.

I'm not even a big Sky fan, but the innuendo is driving me bananas. So there!

(Now I'm going to go away and enjoy one of the classic TDFs.)

[Jaq]

Isn't it - by definition - what pro teams do: take an athlete that shows potential and, over time, turn him or her into a champ?

Maybe two years is nothing... or maybe it's everything. But Sky's got plenty of cash in its coffers to scout potential and develop programs to suit individuals.

So they've got an eye on him 3, 4, 5 years ago. And they see what no one else is seeing, some spark of greatness. They look at his performance numbers, watch him ride, etc. All the other teams see nothing special. But Sky has a hunch and follows it up. Two years later, we're seeing the results.

[MattTuck]

Isn't it - by definition - what pro teams do: take an athlete that shows potential and, over time, turn him or her into a champ?

Maybe two years is nothing... or maybe it's everything. But Sky's got plenty of cash in its coffers to scout potential and develop programs to suit individuals.

So they've got an eye on him 3, 4, 5 years ago. And they see what no one else is seeing, some spark of greatness. They look at his performance numbers, watch him ride, etc. All the other teams see nothing special. But Sky has a hunch and follows it up. Two years later, we're seeing the results.

Joe Dombrowski, American, was signed by Sky last year.

I don't want to say that Sky always goes for the super thin gangly looking guys... but they just can't resist.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/6b425b4413458e8b5ccecb7d11a67938/tumblr_mi6edsEt4b1qacyk6o1_500.jpg

[FlashUNC]

"He shouldn't be shocked if people question his sudden dominance, as you don't just come out of no-where and dominate the Tour without some help."

And this is exactly the problem with this thread. Froome did not come out of nowhere. He looked really good at last year's tdf. He did a great Olympic TT. He did a pretty good Vuelta in 2012 before fatigue (those bad days someone referred to) and Contador set in. He did a very good Vuelta in 2011, including climbing extremely well with a high cadence and a not-exactly-Charly-Gaul style.

Mick Rogers said that Froome is maybe 2% better than last year, and he should know. Team Sky isn't even the best team in the race this year. I think Movistar and Saxo are both stronger (so does Vaughters). What Sky does have is a race leader who is in a bit better shape than the other GC guys, and a really good domestique to do a lot of the chasing.

I'm not even a big Sky fan, but the innuendo is driving me bananas. So there!

(Now I'm going to go away and enjoy one of the classic TDFs.)

Prior to 2011, Froome's best results as a young rider were finishing second in the Giro del Capo, winning the Tour of Mauritius, and winning Mi-Août Bretonne.

These are not exactly the top tier of international races for young talent. As Charles pointed out, no placings at Route du Sud, Tour d'Avenir or even the baby Giro (though he did win one stage there.)

It's a remarkably sparse palmares for someone who is now destroying the field.

In 2009, he won the second stage of the Giro del Capo. He rode the Giro that year and finished seventh among young riders. In 2010, he finished second in the British Nat'l Time Trial Championships, and he's been bulletproof ever since.

But yeah, he's more or less come from nowhere.

[laupsi]

Joe Dombrowski, American, was signed by Sky last year.

I don't want to say that Sky always goes for the super thin gangly looking guys... but they just can't resist.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/6b425b4413458e8b5ccecb7d11a67938/tumblr_mi6edsEt4b1qacyk6o1_500.jpg

check out Joe Dombrowski's power numbers climbing. There was a good article in the Washington Post about him in the spring, should be available on-line. I can vouch for his climbing prowess. He originated from the Mid-Atlantic racing scene and had quit a nice time bashing the competition.

[firerescuefin]

He obviously tested well or using your logic, they just picked some random dude off the street and drugged him up..and HE HAD A FRICKIN PARASITE LIVING IN HIM.

Ever had mono...try it out..you will be lucky to ride around the block much less to win a bunch of races. You know where you've completely lost me...you don't know anything (much like me) yet you draw conclusions like you have your Phd in Human Kinesiology...without even conceding you may be seeing something different or conceding the points of others that may have merit.

One other thing of interest...if he is drugged up and caught, it will be a nuclear winter for British Cycling as Brailsford has been and is British Cycling. Everything they have done under the Brailsford era will be analyzed and pulled apart. Plenty of drug and urine samples to pour over.




Prior to 2011, Froome's best results as a young rider were finishing second in the Giro del Capo, winning the Tour of Mauritius, and winning Mi-Août Bretonne.

These are not exactly the top tier of international races for young talent. As Charles pointed out, no placings at Route du Sud, Tour d'Avenir or even the baby Giro (though he did win one stage there.)

It's a remarkably sparse palmares for someone who is now destroying the field.

In 2009, he won the second stage of the Giro del Capo. He rode the Giro that year and finished seventh among young riders. In 2010, he finished second in the British Nat'l Time Trial Championships, and he's been bulletproof ever since.

But yeah, he's more or less come from nowhere.

[45K10]

I am not a big fan of Froome but today he showed me something.

He could have taken the descent in today's time trial really easy but he didn't. He manned up, went for the win even though he didn't have to and despite the fact that people are screaming from the rooftops that he is on something.

I like that. He has got guts and is a hard competitor.

Is he graceful? no
Does he have a long list of results? no
Is he doping? Don't know and don't really care. I have become indifferent to the doping question and it has made me enjoy watching cycling again.

[FlashUNC]

He obviously tested well or using your logic, they just picked some random dude off the street and drugged him up..and HE HAD A FRICKIN PARASITE LIVING IN HIM.

Ever had mono...try it out..you will be lucky to ride around the block much less to win a bunch of races. You know where you've completely lost me...you don't know anything (much like me) yet you draw conclusions like you have your Phd in Human Kinesiology...without even conceding you may be seeing something different or conceding the points of others that may have merit.

One other thing of interest...if he is drugged up and caught, it will be a nuclear winter for British Cycling as Brailsford has been and is British Cycling. Everything they have done under the Brailsford era will be analyzed and pulled apart. Plenty of drug and urine samples to pour over.

I've never professed to be an expert on human physiology, just a long-time fan of the sport who's seen this dog and pony show before and been disappointed, whether its Richard Virenque, Pharmstrong, Ricco, Jalabert etc etc etc.

Chris seems like a great guy who I also desperately want to be clean. I really would like to believe that. But given this is a sport with a very long history with dope -- and a regulatory body whose leader says it bears no responsibility for the doping crisis of the last two generations. I think it is incredibly myopic to take what any of these guys say at face value.
Brailsford has a zero tolerance policy of not hiring guys associated with doping -- David Millar talks extensively in his book about desperately wanting to ride with Team Sky, and how he couldn't because the team wanted nothing to do with doping -- and the team turns around and hires doctors and staff with past links to doping. Wha?

I continue to think of the boy who cried wolf. We're the townspeople who keep showing up when the boy cries wolf and get burned by his trick. At a certain point, you stop believing when guys say they're clean. The sport's done this to itself. In my mind, these guys don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore, that's long since been ground into dust. It's terrible and horrible and cynical, but that's the legacy of the sport since 1985 or so.

I realize this puts riders and teams in an impossible situation. It is impossible to prove they're not doping when any kind of superlative performance shows up.

Maybe Froome was that diamond in the rough and this is a two-year stretch that's the ride of his life and its totally clean. If it is then Sky deserves all the credit in the world and I want on whatever program they cook up. But just like others we've seen, there is already enough circumstantial evidence to give me pause.

[christian]

Maybe, just maybe, Geert Leinders is the best nutritionist in the world.

[rwsaunders]

The Froome defense thread prompted me to do a little research about the names of the doctors that make the rounds in pro cycling. After reading, it would appear that the same names keep churning through the system, going back quite a few years. Oh well...why am I surprised.

http://www.cyclismas.com/biscuits/tag/geert-leinders

[rain dogs]

Two words:

Lance Armstrong

What Froome can do clean that loser Lance could only do doped? Lance is a cheat, full stop. I never saw anything from him from day 1 post cancer that resembled clean, but, he's not stupid, nor lazy, nor a man who had limited resources.

Why couldn't Lance do and find (even in part) what Froome is doing "clean" and this magic training he has.

The problem is Froome's story reads like Lance 2.0 down to the finest points. And that ain't helping him. So Froome had a virus, Lance had brain cancer... it's adversity that makes you go fast, right?

Merde de Taureau.

[PQJ]

Two words:

Lance Armstrong

I'm supposed to believe that a clean Chris Froome is matching and beating Armstrong's times and W/kg on Ax3, on Ventoux, is a better TT'r due to Brailsford working on this secret training for "15 years" (1998 for those counting)

and not one rider previous, let alone Lance, ever had the money, resources, time, effort to get a hold of this "secret training" that makes you perform like a doper... but clean? Not one doctor or trainer figured this out, until last year? Lance didn't have enough coin, influence or pull to attract these theories. A man who would bribe, intimidate, corrupt the UCI, other riders and sponsors to win, couldn't figure out "training with power and intervals"

What Froome can do clean that loser Lance could only do doped?

Lance is a cheat, full stop. I never saw anything from him from day 1 post cancer that resembled clean, but, he's not stupid, nor lazy, nor a man who had limited resources.

Why couldn't Lance do and find (even in part) what Froome is doing "clean" and this magic training he has.

Lance didn't have enough to lose to do it clean (because Froome shows it's possible, right?) Couldn't be bothered to look? To train? Wasn't British enough?

Yeah... f-ing....right. I wasn't a sucker from 1999-2005, not starting now.

The problem is Froome's story reads like Lance 2.0 down to the finest points. And that ain't helping him. So Froome had a virus, Lance had brain cancer... it's adversity that makes you go fast, right?

Merde de Taureau.

You raise some good points but Lance had a US clothier and US bike manufacturer. Chris has Rapha and a fine Italian steed. Maybe Lance could've won by over an hour so equipped and attired??? Granted they both pedal with high cadence and overcame a medical condition. Though Lance's prickishness prob'ly gave him a few watts over Chris. So many variables, so much time to consider them.

[rustychisel]

hmmm, really didn't want to offer JAC (just another comment) but seeing as the original thread title is being swamped in a chorus of naysayers,

Clean? Dunno
Data? Not available
Came out of nowhere? No

So when I see a bloke with his physique take on the best climbers and beat them hollow I conclude he's a climber.

When he takes on the best TTers and beats them, I conclude he's a TT specialist. That would make sense, it's been the path to TDF domination for well over 25 years, and arguably, back to Anquetil.

So then I seem him take on the best descenders and equal or beat them, it's the obvious conclusion that he's a descender of note.

And then I see him contest a [minor] placing sprint so I conclude he's also a sprinter.

Ah, he's an allrounder... with that physique???? Does he look like an all rounder to you?

It suspends disbelief is all I'm saying

[cfox]

I am not a big fan of Froome but today he showed me something.

He could have taken the descent in today's time trial really easy but he didn't. He manned up, went for the win even though he didn't have to and despite the fact that people are screaming from the rooftops that he is on something.

I like that. He has got guts and is a hard competitor.

Is he graceful? no
Does he have a long list of results? no
Is he doping? Don't know and don't really care. I have become indifferent to the doping question and it has made me enjoy watching cycling again.
Mr. Guts was calling out Contador by name on effing twitter for trying to race downhill. And Mr. Guts is calling for the Sarenne descent to be nuetralized if it rains tomorrow. Sorry Mr. Guts, you'll have to race all the way to Paris.

[firerescuefin]

Rain Dog...you may very well be right...but Lance is your example?

Classics rider...edited out bad info .This should be Froome's 3rd GT victory.

Didn't realize Froome's data has been released...please post it. (Please don't post some dude from bike forums that said Froome's data was such and such based on his "calculations". Tell me...as a sports scientist, what watts per kg you are comfortable with for grand tour winners. Regarding fastest climbs...as I mentioned before not a world track Grand Prix where conditions are approved for records....weather, other riders behavior and other variables play a role...so where is your line of demarcation as far as fastest climbs goes...who's is the fastest you consider clean?

[cfox]

Rain Dog...you may very well be right...but Lance is your example?

Classics rider...couldn't finish a grand tour much less finish in the top 15 in his first. This should be Froome's 3rd GT victory.

Didn't realize Froome's data has been released...please post it. (Please don't post some dude from bike forums that said Froome's data was such and such based on his "calculations". Tell me...as a sports scientist, what watts per kg you are comfortable with for grand tour winners. Regarding fastest climbs...as I mentioned before not a world track Grand Prix where conditions are approved for records....weather, other riders behavior and other variables play a role...so where is your line of demarcation as far as fastest climbs goes...whose isthmus fastest you consider clean?

to be fair to the skeptics...the skepticism began when he almost won the first of his "should'ves", not just now that he's going to win the TDF. The feeling was he came out of nowhere and almost won the Vuelta.

[firerescuefin]

Mr. Guts was calling out Contador by name on effing twitter for trying to race downhill. And Mr. Guts is calling for the Sarenne descent to be nuetralized if it rains tomorrow. Sorry Mr. Guts, you'll have to race all the way to Paris.

He road with guts today...the Contador comment was lame...as he could of dropped back at a pace he felt comfortable with and conceded the time..instead he almost took himself out....descent tomorrow....as the leader of the peleton..if he feels its unsafe..and other riders are telling him the same...then he should voice it IMO

[firerescuefin]

Edit: finished 86th overall in first grand tour.

[slidey]

I have no conclusive proof at all to say that Froome is doping, well if I had, then clearly Froome wouldn't be racing :cool: However, I'm one of those who strongly suspect that Froome is doping, mainly since all the indicators are reminiscent of Lance (as Lawrence mentioned). I do wish he's clean, although I find that utterly improbable at this point in time.

On a similar vein, I don't think this thread can be called a 'defense' per se...only a support of his exploits on the bike. :bike:

[acorn_user]

snip.... sparse palmares... snip....

But yeah, he's more or less come from nowhere.

Well, you sent me back to the record books, and I appreciate your long memory. I can't remember/look up everything, but he rode for Konica Minolta and Barloworld, teams that didn't set the world on fire (well, except for the Moises Duenas fall out). He did a decent ride at the 2009. Giro. And of course, he never entered the Tour de l'Avenir (team not invited in 2007, national teams after that and didn't get an invite to the mixed team). I will grant that this is not a stellar palmares. I suppose the main substance of your particular comment is "how did Froome improve so much between 2009 and 2011", whereas my comment was more aimed at the "I didn't watch the 2011 Vuelta so Froome appeared out of nowhere" group.

[acorn_user]

Also, a lot of this hinges on the team. Do we think Sky is running a clean ship. Well, I do. This is a team that comes out of track cycling via the national set up. The team would collapse with a doping case, and they could potentially bring down British Cycling's national lottery support money with them. I think that's too much for someone like Brailsford to risk.

[slidey]

But isn't there a difference between Sky and the British national team? The National team has a lot more, as I see it, dignity/pride attached to itself, whereas what can a Sky rider claiming to be riding for - more money for Murdoch? What I'm saying is that although on paper the composition of the direct players on both the Brit natl team and Sky may have a huge overlap, there are corporate interests tied into Sky. Maybe this has something to do with adding incentive to dope?

Also, a lot of this hinges on the team. Do we think Sky is running a clean ship. Well, I do. This is a team that comes out of track cycling via the national set up. The team would collapse with a doping case, and they could potentially bring down British Cycling's national lottery support money with them. I think that's too much for someone like Brailsford to risk.