Quote from: Jon Crofts on July 25, 2017, 11:52:40 AMQuote from: peter w on July 25, 2017, 10:59:45 AMQuote from: aj2k77 on July 25, 2017, 01:59:02 AMQuote from: MoetVillan on July 24, 2017, 08:45:12 PMI read something the other day questioning the "value" of the steroids that Lance was on. They may not have been as near influential as we think. I, for the record, think Froome is clean, and some impressive athlete at that. He reckons he has five more years in him, so could break all the records.Wow, you honestly believe blood transfusions and EPO had a limited effect? No wonder you think Chris Froome went from someone disqualified for holding on to a motorbike to get up a climb the day after being a domestique for Greg Henderson to possibly one of the greatest cyclists ever, whilst being clean, because he trains hard, and sleeps on his own pillow.I'll leave the thread now, it's on a completely different level, where people think EPO doesn't do THAT much and bike weights actually matter in the 21st century.So a young rider does something stupid to cut corners gets caught and is disqualified? Hardly makes him prime candidate for EPO/Steroids or whatever once his developed into an experienced professional cyclist.Problem is Peter there's a lot of people that think there's a bit more to it than just hanging onto a motorbike. There is perhaps good reason to be suspicious about Froome, from his TUE exemption for corticosteroids at the 2014 Tour de Romandie and the 2013 ascent of Ventoux where his power to weight ratio and heart rate were in Lying Lance territory (over 7 watts per Kg).Doubts will persist unfortunately.Is that level of "power" achievable in someone not on enhancements? (im sorry, my biology expertise only runs to litres of milk from a cow, or days to conception in the dairy cow)
Quote from: peter w on July 25, 2017, 10:59:45 AMQuote from: aj2k77 on July 25, 2017, 01:59:02 AMQuote from: MoetVillan on July 24, 2017, 08:45:12 PMI read something the other day questioning the "value" of the steroids that Lance was on. They may not have been as near influential as we think. I, for the record, think Froome is clean, and some impressive athlete at that. He reckons he has five more years in him, so could break all the records.Wow, you honestly believe blood transfusions and EPO had a limited effect? No wonder you think Chris Froome went from someone disqualified for holding on to a motorbike to get up a climb the day after being a domestique for Greg Henderson to possibly one of the greatest cyclists ever, whilst being clean, because he trains hard, and sleeps on his own pillow.I'll leave the thread now, it's on a completely different level, where people think EPO doesn't do THAT much and bike weights actually matter in the 21st century.So a young rider does something stupid to cut corners gets caught and is disqualified? Hardly makes him prime candidate for EPO/Steroids or whatever once his developed into an experienced professional cyclist.Problem is Peter there's a lot of people that think there's a bit more to it than just hanging onto a motorbike. There is perhaps good reason to be suspicious about Froome, from his TUE exemption for corticosteroids at the 2014 Tour de Romandie and the 2013 ascent of Ventoux where his power to weight ratio and heart rate were in Lying Lance territory (over 7 watts per Kg).Doubts will persist unfortunately.
Quote from: aj2k77 on July 25, 2017, 01:59:02 AMQuote from: MoetVillan on July 24, 2017, 08:45:12 PMI read something the other day questioning the "value" of the steroids that Lance was on. They may not have been as near influential as we think. I, for the record, think Froome is clean, and some impressive athlete at that. He reckons he has five more years in him, so could break all the records.Wow, you honestly believe blood transfusions and EPO had a limited effect? No wonder you think Chris Froome went from someone disqualified for holding on to a motorbike to get up a climb the day after being a domestique for Greg Henderson to possibly one of the greatest cyclists ever, whilst being clean, because he trains hard, and sleeps on his own pillow.I'll leave the thread now, it's on a completely different level, where people think EPO doesn't do THAT much and bike weights actually matter in the 21st century.So a young rider does something stupid to cut corners gets caught and is disqualified? Hardly makes him prime candidate for EPO/Steroids or whatever once his developed into an experienced professional cyclist.
Quote from: MoetVillan on July 24, 2017, 08:45:12 PMI read something the other day questioning the "value" of the steroids that Lance was on. They may not have been as near influential as we think. I, for the record, think Froome is clean, and some impressive athlete at that. He reckons he has five more years in him, so could break all the records.Wow, you honestly believe blood transfusions and EPO had a limited effect? No wonder you think Chris Froome went from someone disqualified for holding on to a motorbike to get up a climb the day after being a domestique for Greg Henderson to possibly one of the greatest cyclists ever, whilst being clean, because he trains hard, and sleeps on his own pillow.I'll leave the thread now, it's on a completely different level, where people think EPO doesn't do THAT much and bike weights actually matter in the 21st century.
I read something the other day questioning the "value" of the steroids that Lance was on. They may not have been as near influential as we think. I, for the record, think Froome is clean, and some impressive athlete at that. He reckons he has five more years in him, so could break all the records.
When anyone dominates like this there will always be questions. With Armstrong there was obviously good reason. With Froome, there is as much suspicion right now as there is with someone like Mo Farah i.e. surrounded by people who have cheated, but not necessarily any evidence he has yet.Or it could be a Michael Phelps situation..........where it has been shown that he just has a body that is just built to make him go faster than everyone else (something about his legs being short in proportion to his torso and his feet being big in proportion to his legs). Maybe Froome is just mechanically built to do this, even though he looks unconventional.
Again my understanding is that sky decided (compared to other teams) that money has more impact when spread across the team and crucially coaches rather than invested in one star individual.Have I simply swallowed their propaganda or would the above have an impact?