Doping

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

I’m guessing I got the media sondbite then. I mean I can’t deny a feat like that is freakish, and given the history of the sport that is suspicious. But my god the guy has some brass balls is he is still cheating right now, from a personal perspective. Such is cycling though, who knows

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.

This bit doesn’t add up to me, it seems like clever switching of focus. Whilst each fact may be correct in itself they pose no relevance to each other.

1 Attachment

This bit doesn’t add up to me

You're quickly down the rabbit hole if you expect any of the speculation about Froome's (or anybody else's) physiology to add up. In pretty much every case, people cobble together individual estimates with population level statistics and then try to prove that he's doping by using information with 10% error bars to come to conclusions with a claimed accuracy of under 1%

Quite. I’m skeptical of his performances and where he has come from but this strikes me as just mud slinging.
For example I have a BMI of 21.6, there is no way the average person would put me as closer to fat than athlete.

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

Here is a great big article on why your cadence in a TT and on a climb will be different from CyclingTips

https://cyclingtips.com/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/

That’s really interesting.
I’ve always wondered why I’m so rubbish on flat terrain, of course might not be for this reason.

That article is really snide. Mud slinging at its worst. I don't know if he's cheating and nor do I care.

. (edit- don't mind me - wrong thread)

Would have been better had it been a new page... fail worthy

hehe, well done for seeing before I ninja edited, I totally though I was on the ProCycling chat page. Epic fail

Its nonsense

Years ago, I went from 73kg to 68kg (I'm 6 foot / 183cm) over three weeks cycling in the Himalayas, while getting stronger. Came back and won a 3/4 race at Hog Hill a week or so later. I didnt look "fat" at 73kg and I dropped 5kg without effort

Likely very linked to body type and metabolism, but if I can do that as a middling club rider, I dont see it as a stretch for a pro to drop 6kg and add power over a longer period

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

That article reads like all his research was done in the Cyclingnews clinic...

The main argument would be that the pro is meant to already be at their ideal weight or within a few kg of it, and certainly putting out more power if they are on the heavier side of it. See Thomas De Gent as an example: challenged for the Giro, put on weight one winter, tried to lose it and maintain power, couldn't.

Comparing middling club racer to a pro who is meant to be riding for the best team with all its marginal gains, is like comparing apples to bloody beach balls

The main argument would be that the pro is meant to already be at their ideal weight or within a few kg of it.

lol...

sure - they're "meant to already be", but in this case he was 5-6kg above his ideal weight, and my point is that losing 5kg is hardly "improbable" as the article states

Altitude is potent.

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.

Because the internet has killed the serious press

What is the key evidence you think it omits? I would be interested in a rebuttal. I have got to the point where I'm not sure what to think.

I have got to the point where I'm not sure what to think

Given that we haven't seen the defence case at all, and we haven't seen how the prosecution case stands up to cross-examination, that's where you should be.

Froome was tested by the UCI as part of their development programme, when he was in his early 20s. The results from that show he had the raw talent to be a top level pro, what was missing was the ability to ride in a bunch, as he’d never raced in large groups before.

See that is the counter narrative which I see as a possibilty, fine. As I said he's either a freak or not, instinct says he is but at the same time I can see how ppl see the opposite.