-
I thought this was quite good. It does raise the question on why he was shit, then suddenly great. Which there hasn’t really been an answer for. Though the article does raise questions and poke holes, without a huge amount of evidence and it even points to his weight loss of 10kg which is huge!
However if he were using a motor it’s not like he could be now, so what is he doing. It’s just my thought, but I do see him standing to attack more now. Especially in giro.
-
Pretty desperate article IMO. The stuff about HR and power is just dumb - your HR always takes a while to catch up when you start a big effort and going from 154ish to 162ish is a lot if 154 is around your threshold
The stuff about motor doping is tenuous as is saying he should have rounded 21.9 up to 22 rather than down to 21
I am firmly in the "I wish I knew for sure" camp but nothing in that article shifts me one way or the other
-
That article reads like all his research was done in the Cyclingnews clinic...
-
Hard-hitting
He quotes Varjas ffs, how the fuck can this be called hard hitting? Why do the likes of Varjas and Vayer get given a free pass by the press, when most of their claims can be dismissed by someone with GCSE level scientific knowledge.
It's light on fact and misses some of the key evidence, presumably on purpose, that exists in the public domain around Froome.
It's a hatchet job, pure and simple.
You are reading a single comment by @Jimmy_Fingers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
skinny
Clownshoe
SCS
andyp
@Jimmy_Fingers
Hard-hitting breakdown of the Froome inconsistencies. Quite frankly though I’m astonished if he is doing what he is doing and doping and getting away with it (AAF excepted), under the full glare. If the best he will be got for is sabultamol then the tests really don’t work. But then Cadel managed it #trollface
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/ewan-mackenna-so-how-is-it-then-that-you-explain-a-freak-like-chris-froome-36968940.html#click=https://t.co/M5OXVoIStG