Chris Froome & Doping


Even subsequent to clearing up the matter of why Sky were capable of performing to such high levels there is still the dilemma of Chris Froome. His rise to the top was not only unprecedented, but in fact it was completely out of the blue and many people would say that there was not even so much as the slightest indication of his talent prior to the 2011 Vuelta.


Logically this would be a clear and very blatant sign as to possible doping; the simple explanation for the ridiculous leap would be due to doping. It was the factor which gave him the ability to perform beyond what he was previously capable of and it has been the cause of his ascension to one of the most highly rated Grand Tour riders who are currently racing in the modern peloton.



But in my opinion and from what I have read and heard about the rider, it seems as if his startling rise to the very summit of Grand Tour racing may not have been all that surprising. Personally I believe that he was hindered by a variety of factors, but behind all his struggles he encountered there was in fact a very talented cyclists waiting for the opportunity to prove his talent.




Froome was born in Nairobi to English parents, without going into unnecessary detail it should be mentioned that he started off racing BMX bikes and was racing by the age of 13, he then moved to South Africa at the age of 14.


It was in fact only once he was living in South Africa that he started to turn his attention to road cycling, but the infrastructure was not ideal and it would prove to be costly. Prior to his arrival in South Africa he had never even ridden a road bike, only BMX and Mountain bikes. 


He was coached by David Kinjah who had competed to a decent level himself, but Froome did not receive anywhere close to the training expertise and coaching techniques that many of his rivals would have at similar ages.


It was only then at the age of 22 that Froome became pro, once again considering his talent he should have become pro earlier but it was obvious that he had been restricted by the limited resources that were available to him


Froome's first team was Team Konica Minolta and they were a South African team with limited resources as expected. In his first season he did relatively well a win at the Tour of Japan was followed by a number of placings around the globe as his team charted unprecedented territory.


It was at the Giro delle Regioni where Froome really started to show potential and in retrospect his perfomances were quite remarkable for a rider who was competing with such a distinct disadvantage due to his lack of skills and professional training. He won the primary mountain stage ahead of riders who have now become household names, the likes of Tour de France stage winner Rui Costa and Bauke Mollema who came 4th at the Vuelta 2011 amonst others. 


This has been Froome's first real crack at proper European racing and he had taken to it amazingly well considering his limiting circumstances. In fact Froome would have dominated the race if not for his chain braking in the closing meters of the other major stage. 


Yet even considering the amazing perfomance Froome has put in, it was not enough. He had been racing for the WCC (World Cycling Centre Team) whilst in Europe and the coach of the team Michael Theze said of Froome that...



Quote
He's not a technical rider yet. He fell four time during the race. Two of his falls came in the third stage, costing him 1:20. When you see that in the final ranking he is only 1:25 behind the winner it isn't difficult to do the maths."


It is obvious to us in retrospect that Froome was still far behind the other riders when it came to the technical skills required to race at the highest level and this placed him at a significant disadvantage.


Then in 2008 Froome was eventually snapped up by Barloworld and was therefore under the direction of their Italian manager Claudio Corti, now the manager of Farnese Vini. As would be expected of any neo-pro - no matter their talent - who was only starting out in their career, the season was to be used merely as an eye opener for Froome and for him to truly adjust to the European style of racing. 


Yet even so Froome was impressive he finished in the Top 10 in a number of minor races and he safely finished a number of high profile classics such as Liege Bastogne Liege and La Fleche Wallone. His most impressive result though was his 5th place finish in a TT at the Vuelta asturias where he managed to finish a mere 26 seconds behind Samuel Sanchez the soon to be Olympic champion. 


Froome was certainly showing signs of his potential. He was then given the opportunity to ride his first Grand Tour - the Tour de France and he battled through it, and then managing to eventually finish 14th on the final stage which was a TT.


If there was ever a test of strength to determine whether Froome had the potential to become a future Grand Tour contender it was this. Without the proper training or techniques and not being used to the rigours of a 3 week race, Froome nevertheless posted what would be considered a magnificent result for any neo-pro. Indeed this had already been proven a few days earlier when he had been climbing with the lead group for the majority of the Alpe d'huez climb.


2009 was a year where Froome seemed not to have made much improvement. 


He came 6th in a Giro stage amonst other decent yet not spectacular results. 

This was not the progression of an extremely talented rider who would go on to dominate the world of cycling, but rather of a mediocre rider who would remain inconspicuous amongst the pro ranks.





2009 should have been the year when Froome started to excel, but instead it turned out to be a year where he displayed nothing of any true substance. This has resulted in many people believing that Froome does not have the natural talent as his Tour rivals and that therefore the logical explanation for his current status in the sport is down to drugs. 


This was what his team manage Claudio Corti had to say at the time. Corti claimed that Froome whom he dubbed his “white Kenyan” would 



Quote
Finish in the top 5 of the Tour de France, or do even better”


Clearly Corti had seen what Froome was capable of and believed that he was indeed innately capable. He just was not racing at the level he was capable of racing at, because of the reason stated above, that he was hindered by his lack of technical prowess. 


Then Froome joined Sky and his career would be totally altered. Sky had just started up and it took time for him to adjust. The whole set up was new to Froome and from what I have seen and heard it seems to be that Froome was on the outskirts of this setup. The Sky team were not as methodical then with all their riders as they are now and considering how Froome was still considered to be a peripheral member of the squad and therefore not treated with the same respect as riders like Wiggins, his technical skills were still rather poor and this still hindered him. But even more than that the defining reason for his poor reasons in 2010, which were headlined by a Tour de Haut var 9th place, was due to the fact that on Holiday in Kenya he had contracted the disease of Bilharzia. 



Quote
“Either in Kenya or South Africa, I got a water parasite, which is really difficult to get rid of.
"We found out that I had it last December, I had a full blood screening in Africa as they regularly check for it over there.
“It feeds on red blood cells so for an endurance athlete it’s a nightmare. It’s something I’m conscious of, in a three-week race you’re bound to have ups and downs.

Yet the Sky management team had in fact noticed his potential and had in fact described him as 

Quote
a rough diamond, in need of shaping and polishing"


When Froome joined the team back in early 2010.


This is another indication of people who believed in Froome and that he was capable, but just had to improve his technical skills. And of course get over his Bilharzia. 


Yet Bilharzia is an infection by parasites who lay eggs deep within the human body and therefore it is very difficult to get rid off.


Entering into the 2011 season Froome had two objectives if was to fulfil his potential. One was to get rid of the Bilharzia and the other was to increase his technical skills.


Luckily for him Bobby Julich had just arrived at Sky and he was assigned to Froome for the 2011 season. This was the first time that Froome had had the opportunity to work with a coach of Julich’s experience and calibre one to one and immediately Julich noted his riders potential.



Quote
We did some lab testing with him early in the year and it wasn’t making sense. I saw the numbers and said to Rod Ellingworth that the machines must be calibrated wrong, because these were the numbers of a guy who would finish on the Tour de France podium. Rod told me that, no, they were right. I was amazed.


Yet it soon became apparent to Julich as to the reason why Froome had underperformed so badly over the past 2 years..



Quote
But then when we started working together I realised straight away that Chris needed some work on organisation and structure. He was a real tinkerer- always changing his shoes, his training, his diet or whatever. He had also continued to train too much even when he was suffering with the parasite, which had knocked his confidence as well as his energy levels.

Beyond that it was all very basic stuff last year; Chris did not know how to race. I needed to teach him how to get the watts out at the right time. To do that we tried to hold him back in the first few stages in the Vuelta last year, get him to race steadily and this year we basically used the same tactic at Romandie, the Dauphine and the Tour”


I do not believe there is much better proof than that. It was obvious once again here that Froome had been hindered by his lack of education when it came to how to ride a bike.


Likewise Richard Moore commented on Froome’s website that:



Quote
After a difficult first season with Team Sky in 2010, he appears to have taken a big step forward this season, partly by working to reduce his upper body movement. Previously, by his own admission, Froome was "literally all over my bike".
"One of the things I want to do is calm my upper body down and become more stable," he explained.
Smooth
Froome thus spent many hours doing core-strengthening Pilates


Once again the reference to the way in which Froome rode his bike as being “all over”,  clearly highlights his deficiencies at the time. 


And finally he was starting to get rid of the parasite disease which had bugged him so much. Indeed he was still adapting and learning with :Julich though and his performances were gradually improving as a result.  He came 8th  on a Romandie mountain stage. And top 10s at the Tour de Suisse and Tour of Luxembourg. It was not much granted, but it was clearly signs that he had finally managed to overcome his technical difficulties and was shaking off the effects of the Bilharzia. And of course the rest is very much a part of history.



In conclusion I believe it was always evident that Froome had the potential to become a future Tour de France podium finished. 


Indeed his results in his 2007 season spoke volumes for his capabilities, yet when he turned pro it was obvious he could not continue to match those riders he had previously beaten unless he could improve his technical skills. Even if people do not believe his claim of having Bilharzia ,and I am in very little doubt myself at to its validity, it would still be safe to say that he was hindered by his lack of technical skills.


It is logical to assume that without those hindrances Chris Froome would have burst onto the scene much earlier than when he in fact did. 


Coupled with his Bilharzia he was very much inhibited in his first year at Sky, but gradually once he learnt the tricks of the trade he became the rider he is today. 


51 comments :

  1. I agree.
    Good post
    I will write about this in the close future

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Sky who had promised to be free from all connection to doping assigned to Froome Bobby Julich who was up to his neck in doping through his career, and gradually Froome learnt the tricks of the tade to become the rider he is today.
    I got it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sky's Public Relations and how they portray themselves to the media is as an entirely different matter whatsoever.

      I challenge you to go through the World Tour teams and find World Tour teams which do not employ many staff heavily involved in doping.

      The problem is that the pool of which to draw these staff is very limited, if you want experience in cycling you have to hire staff who were involved in that dark era of the sport. Sky currently have taken staff from other areas such as Tim Kerrison from swimming and also exploiting triathlon. But ideally if you want cycling experience they will likely have a history behind them.

      Just because Julich once doped does not mean he is "corrupting" young men so to speak and making them dope, I personally don't declare riders guilty by association.

      In terms of Sky's PR, they have messed that one up I must confess. Their zero tolerance policy has been a farce; a false demonstration to the ignorant British public that Sky are clean. Yet it was not a concept that will aid the sport or has any place in the sport.

      Delete
  3. I agree with you S - not sure what the S stands for! I don't consider myself in a position to know where Sky's riders are in terms of cleanliness but from their starting point of adamantly declaring a wish to perform as a team with total transparency so that the public could have absolute faith in their honesty, no connection to a doping past, etc . . . well they have clearly failed or reneged in terms of their own criteria, and so I would say have forfeited any right to expect to be given the benefit of the doubt and considered clean by the public.
    Instead Froome coming out with stuff like (paraphrasing) "My being so good is proof you can win clean." - that's just empty verbiage we've heard the likes of plenty times before.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Totally agree! Without wiggins in the tour, froome is one of the main faces of sky. It is up to sky to portray their cyclists in the best light, not up to froomes to handle the press. I don't see how Julich would change this either way!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The British are dumb when it comes to cycling. Most people know he dopes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have to disagree with you there Sadie.

    Whilst people assume that Froome dopes due to his seemingly "miraculous" ascension to the summit of cycling and possibly due to his and Sky's links with Leinders amongst other factors. To actually say that you know he dopes?

    Certainly no one outside of the Omerta bound peloton and all its offshoots knows specifically whether Chris Froome dopes. You can use your own logic to come up with a conclusion but right or wrong it is just your own perception of the situation. I just want to present a viewpoint where it could be possible to say that there is an alternative to say that Froome's ascension was due to doping and thus allowing people to draw an alternative conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You mean to say he doesn't dope? The tell today was Porte. A domestique has just destroyed the best riders in the World. This is nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The best riders today were Froome and Porte.
    Porte was today at the same level that Andy and Contador when they were looking ech other all the climb.

    Froome was slower than Laiseka.

    Yes, little bit better than Lance, Ulle and Zubeldia in 2003, but that stage was longer, was hoter, and that Tour was very hard, they did the Alps before, and today bikes, technology and other legal things are better.

    http://patrimoniociclista.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/an-unpolished-diamond-story-of-chris.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think Froome will win this year's Tour de Dope.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Comparing times on climbs is something which I can not relate to at all. There are numerous different factors which influence it; for example Sky went full gas on the climb yesterday whilst Lance in 2001 for example did not.

    As Capreolus said you just can't compare, with there being so many different factors. It is these amateurs who do want to go out and use climbing data to draw false conclusions who hinder teams from releasing data in the fear it will get misinterpreted.

    Porte is not just a domestique, on any other team he would be a leader in his own right. In his first season as a neo-pro he placed Top 10 in the Giro, that indicates potential to win a Grand Tour in the future.

    Anyways today's stage shows that Sky are not entirely infallible which is a good thing in my opinion as it allows the Tour to become a much more open and more riveting affair.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Chris Froome is the only African cyclist. Because he is African I always suspected him of doping.
    People can't say this because political correctness has gone mad!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny that, I think the same everytime I see a French, Spanish, Italian or American cyclist...

      Delete
    2. How did that make any sense!

      Delete
    3. The african and asian cycling are the cleanest.

      Delete
  12. Can the editor please take down the above comment before I file a complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is Amazing what fan culture can make people believe and what kind of storys you can manipulate out in the internet.

    If sky knew his potentiale, then why the hell did they not offer him a contract before the Vuelta in 2011?

    Team sky have had the Rabobank doping doctor involved in the team from 2010 to late 2012. In same period Team sky has won all major stage races with 4-5 different riders. Froome is riding a mountain stage 2 minutes ahead of the other favourites and as well on a 33 km flat time trial.

    It is unbelivable so easy and naive people are when is it their own national hero winning. Team skys and Froomes performances are not normal! IT not happened in modern cycling that anyon can keep the form for 4-5 months, like all the Team Sky riders are doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sky did not offer him a contract before the Vuelta because he had been on the team since its inception and had not fulfilled expectations whatsoever. They are a team of performance and regardless of your potential if you are not performing at the level you should, then you will not be given a place on the team.

      Sky did not use Leinders at last year's Tour just for the record; he was suspended since around June as they were investigating his past.

      Stating facts about performances is not enough. There are rational ways of explaining such performances. Above I have explained some of it, the Tim Kerrison article also explains it. Sky have pushed the limits in cycling and are close to breaking them, they have an exceptionally talented rider in Froome and just as the marathon record has been broken so too performance records will be broken in the future.

      So to claim performance is an irrefutable argument for doping just does not work.

      Delete
  14. While most would either want to believe Froome is clean or demand innocence before proven guilty - cycling have lost these values. A dramatic increase in performance from someone not rated internationally as a junior - unfortunately Froome is guilty until proven innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  15. all data and ideed froomes impossible results shows he uses doping. to say otherwise it's frankly ridiculous and argument like he's training a lot and he had hard childs life to be honest doesn't make much sense at all. his result in yesterdays time trial was 4th quickest in all history (54 km/h) of tdf, and his ascent to final climb in first pyronees stage as we all know was 3rd quickest in the history of tdf, these quickest results were posted on doping era. the logic suggest hes using some sophisticated doping which is undetectable. the funny thing is - just anglosaxons again defending him exactly like it was with armstrong, people saying before look hes on doping big time, but english people said nooo no wayy..:)) such a hypocrysy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Maybe the sky riders are making the other GC contenders look ordinary because those riders are now off EPO and really are more ordinary. Contador is a proven doper. Frank and Andy schleck are so close I can't believe one was doping and the other wasn't. These ridersare also not keeping up with similarly "lesser" riders like valverde.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am afraid your logic is flawed because doping in cycling has always been like an arms race. If one team can get away with it then why not the others.

      Do you really think that if Sky were doping that Michael Rogers would have gone to SaxoTinkoff and told them to keep clean and try and win the Tour? If Sky are doping, Riis the manager of Saxo is certainly doping his riders.

      That Sky is using a more sophisticated and effective method of doping is a more viable possibility, but personally I don't buy it.

      Delete
    2. This is ridiculous arguments. Maybe Rogers went to Saxo Bank because he didnt want to take part in the lying in sky anymore? A fact is that Froome all season has been 2 levels over all competetors. the only 2 riders i recall doing this before Wiggins last season and Froome this season is Merchxx. to keep an absolute top courve is not possible for 4 or 5 months. I would like to see Sky put out the Watt numbers - like Froome did on Barloworld - but they seem to be afraid doing it for some reason. Everything can be twisted and turned - but it is completely fair to be sceptic about Froomes performances since Vuelta 2011 when he was out of contract.

      Delete
  18. Interesting article but missing a couple of elements. Firstly Barloworld was hardly the cleanest team in the peloton with Duenas and Astarloa being members of the team at various times. None of this means that Froome is guilty of course, but seems odd not to mention it in a article which deals with the dual issues of Froome and doping suspicions. (BTW I'm not sure that Corti is manager of Farnese-Vini, but of Columbia. If the former, another poor sign...)

    Secondly, you mention that Corti saw Froome as top 5 or better. Firstly, there is a difference between top 5 or better and crushing everyone entirely in the mountains and being as good as TT specialists in TTs. Secondly, although you write of Corti's assessment of Froome's potential, you find no room to mention Dave Brailsford's - and I think that many would consider DB's assessment of a cyclist's potential more relaible than that of Corti. DB rated Froom as being of a low ability and a low potential in the Sky squad, indeed one of the lowest. This was in 2010 or 2011, just before Froome exploded.

    Again, it is worth underlining that there is a difference between Froome showing promise, which your article shows that he did, and Froome crushing all opposition in virtually every stage race he has raced this year. Even Armstrong contained his dominance virtually to the Tour alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with a lot which you have said.

      Brailsford's assessment of Froome is myth and comes from a graph written up by a journalist. I have not found a quote from Brailsford about Froome before the 2011 Vuelta (not that I have looked) but I have found plenty from Julich and Yates who monitored Froome at Sky.

      The point of the article is to show that Froome did not come from nowhere. If he had then I would agree with you, yet I believe the above shows that not to be true. Froome had to iron out a lot of chinks. It does not show clearly that Froome demonstrated the potential to win the Tour, but then who can say how a rider develops and anyways we can't have an accurate description of Froome's potential

      What you do not mention is his Bilharzia which contributed so much to Froome's dismal performances.

      Corti says Froome can top 5 or better; that shows he believed he had potential. I don't know if Evans' coach said the same about him when he was that age? Ok, Evans' came from a MB background but the idea remains the same.

      Delete
    2. By not mentioning Bilharzia, I am, for argument's sake at least, accepting that it held him back significantly. What I am saying is that I am accepting that he had potential, but it is a bit of a leap to then see him crushing the opposition right through the year (today's events notwithstanding, although I don't think they change the big picture very much at all).

      Brailsford's assessment of Froome is not a 'myth'. It is the interpretation by a respected cycling journalist working for a respected cycling publication of a graph produced for Team Sky. It gives a reasonable idea of where CF stood in Sky's plans at that stage. Unless you are suggesting that cycle sport magazine has some kind of agenda, of course. It seems, seems, that in your determination to show that CF had potential all along, you are willing to overlook,discount and discredit any evidence which contradicts your argument. Without wishing to be impolite or unkind, in my mind this undermines your credibility to an extent, which is a shame because the article above in informative and interesting.

      Delete
    3. I have a feeling that this article is more a fan article, than an article with facts.

      Brailsford said yesterday that he noticed Froome first time in 2006 at some champinship where he finished 5 minutes after the winner - which is quite new to everything we have heard before. I see a new story developing all the time and there is no doubt Sky is good in handling press issues.

      "Sky did not use Leinders at last year's Tour just for the record; he was suspended since around June as they were investigating his past."

      But what did Leinders do in the team? what was his job position? The guy is accused by several riders for having invented an even more sophisticated doping programme than US Postal. You know they dont need to bring the doctor whom made the system or teached people about how to do it. So it really does not matter if he were with the team in 2012. Fuentes wasnt neither part of any team from his clinique. So it is again an eyeclosed argument.

      The Marginal gain story - hmm - how many years have you followed cycling? For me it sound slike you are quite new as all riders have been working with marginal gains for all years. Have you followed Riis and his cycle team and how he have handled everything? (well you have to be eyeclosing fan not to think that there has been doping in the Saxo team at least unto Contador got his sentence) - but still they have been working with marginals for years. There is no way a new training methode can make you 5-10 better than your opponents and especially not when you before were 10-30 minutes behind them on all mountains - than it is not just 5-10% improvement - but maybe 20-30% - it is not possible.

      Leinders was brought in 2010 - Froome boomed at the Vuelta in 2011 in both TTs and climbing - we never know how good Wiggins was at the tour as he crashed. It is only seen that people can increase that much in both disciplines had found a short cut.

      Delete
  19. As much as I would like to believe in Christopher Froome's sports' development, the dominance he demonstrates on the mountain and his likewise superiority over his general classement opponents on the time trial (were it not for Tony Martin's performance) arise suspicion that his achievement is too good to be true. He is not a specialist, but an allrounder who shows no weakness and is beating practically all of the respective specialists, just like Lance Armstrong and Mickael Rasmussen before - I fear for the worst. Maybe the contenders should consider aiming for second place. Just in case the eventual winner gets stripped of his laurels in some future year due to delayed doping proof, they can claim first place behind the winner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you are saying is that an allrounder such a Froome should not be beating specialist climbers such as Quintana and Rodriguez. Whilst that is logically very viable I don't believe it to be necessarily true.

      Though powering along the flat is very different to powering along up the climbs if you look at all the past greats of the Tour many of them were great Time triallists and great climbers. Merckx, Indurain, Hinault, Lemond even dare I see it Armstrong and Contador. Of course drugs comes into the equation more often than not in many of those cases the defining facet is that I don't think being a great climber and Time triallist is mutually exclusive.

      Though they may require a different skill set, a really good bike rider can do both as the aforementioned have proven. Nowadays this is becoming harder and harder as sport in general becomes more specialised and especially cycling, but if you look at the general trend of Grand Tour winners in the past few years; Hesjedal, Nibali, Wiggins, Contador they have all be good Time Triallists, some of them even the best. Have they excelled in both areas as Froome is doing? No, but they have done well in both areas and I think that also shows that excelling may also be possible

      Delete
  20. for me personally the most telling thing that he's doping after his miraculous performanaces, of course - is his interwievs, you don't need to bee zygmund freud to understand what hes lying in all his interwievs about not knowing like gaps there so big etc its simple things but from psychological point of view his answers and explanations about his dominance and doping is frankly pathetic. iam sure if it'll be an italian or spanish cyclist all british press would be shouting about doping on every opportunity.. that a pathetic hypocrates nation english is - total wankers

    ReplyDelete
  21. Today reminded me of the stage in the Giro when Pantani was found doping. Froome had no reason to attack today. When Porte went he was in a perfect situation to stay with the final group. But he attacked to catch Quintana then dropped him. Why? Like Pantani the answer is because he had the strength at his disposal to do it at will. Now, if you watch what Porte did today you would only have doping to credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary, I don't see how your argument proves that Froome is doping.

      What you are saying is that Froome is heads and shoulders above anyone else. I would agree with that assessment.

      Delete
    2. The past few tours have been much more "even" without any explosive breaks in the high mountains. When Froome explodes with his incredibly high cadence it does say he is shoulders above anyone else. But when he does so when there is no reason to it is very suspect. He seems to not have a care in the world that he will recover and be back to his explosive form. Most cyclists wouldnt think of attacking in the high mountains unless they had to. We have all experienced a bonk and we have all experienced those days when our legs simply stayed in bed. I have no proof that he is doping and I hope he isnt. After being so disappointed with Pantani it would be nice to know that someone is so much stronger than the others.

      Delete
  22. The case is well made here for Chris Fromme's credibility. Close, but no cigar. We need to know what products and treaments he's being especially allowed to use for therapeutic reasons. If bilharzia, a chronic disease, diminishes hematocrit, is he allowed to use EPO? Transfusions? Hemodialysis perhaps, as it's rumoured? Furthermore, if side-effects of praziquantel (the drug of choice against bilharzia) "may be life-threatening and can be reduced by coadministration of corticosteroids" (wikipedia), is he allowed to take any of these? Anyway, what is his level hematocrit every morning, at the beginning of the stage? Shouldn't it be public? And how did he get so skinny? Shoulnd't AICAR use be suspected when we are seeing riders thinner than any time in history?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bundle, whilst I agree entirely that ideally the public could have access to such information as you demand in your post, I hope you understand why that is not truly possible. AICAR is an interesting product and one which many suspect as the new drug to use in the peloton. Whether froome uses it? I would hope not, how he got that skinny? You would have to ask the sky doctors and trainers that question. Though it is certainly possible to achieve such without using any prohibited substances. It is likely that sky use substances which skirt the boundaries of legality though, after all it is all about getting a competitive advantage without breaking the rules. I have a feeling we would know if froome is allowed to use epo etc, he would be testing positive after every stage after all, the uci wouldn't be able to keep those all under wraps so I would discount that. The uci managed to cover up some of lances positives very likely, but could they do it continuously for froome?

      Delete
    2. Back on a computer and able to type.

      I would also add that I have seen reliable proof which I can not post publicly about what Froome is prescribed and there are no such products involved from what I know.

      I don't expect people to be convinced by something I can't really divulge, but just saying.

      Delete
    3. he has not DUE, Bilharzia has a treatment that is not doping, instead, is bad for a cyclist.

      Delete
  23. froome lost all credibility yesterday for sure - to put even biggers gaps on his rivals than armstrong and in particular pantani - the greatest climber ever. it's laughable to suggest that froome is better than pantani

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People seem to be stuck too much watching lance and pantan I, to propose that a rider can't be better than pantan I just doesn't make sense. Anyways comparisons also don't necessarily add up, are froome s rivals as strong as pantan I? the stage and conditions were different yesterday it is indeed harder than just stating the facts and leaving it at that.

      Delete
  24. Pantani a great climber, o my god, he was 40,7 hemact in Match 1994. Two month later he was 57 at the end of that Tour.. someone with that natural hetatocris like Pantani would be today nobody without doping.

    Froome has a big engine, now we have biopassport and other things.

    With tailwind , something strange there. Froome has been 23 best time in History in Ventoux...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Even subsequent to clearing up the matter of why Sky were capable of performing to such high levels there is still the dilemma of Chris Froome. His rise to the top was not only unprecedented, but in fact it was completely out of the blue and many people would say that there was not even so much as the slightest indication of his talent prior to the 2011 Vuelta.

    Buy peptides

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I put it before, but maybe you dont read it:
      http://patrimoniociclista.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/an-unpolished-diamond-story-of-chris.html
      You have some answer to your questions, becouse you say things that are not true

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but I have to agree. Capreolus addresses many points and I on different pages on this blog have also addressed many of those points.

      If you could present a reason for why don't buy the above, then I would be more inclined to follow your line of reasoning.

      Delete
    3. yes, of course you addresed many points, I forgot to add that, sorry, and the interesting thing is that we got the same conclusions while I didnt read this. I read this blog at the end of my work.

      but people dont want to read and discuss, just to say something and leave.

      Delete
  26. Even subsequent to clearing up the matter of why Sky were capable of performing to such high levels there is still the dilemma of Chris Froome.

    Aicar
    CJC 1295 with DAC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wich hight level?' I dindt see in SKy any incredible hifht level performance, we can discuss about if you want

      Delete
  27. What can i say about your blog i have no words to say really very nice and informative keep posting like this thanks

    Buy Ostarine

    ReplyDelete
  28. Really appreciate you sharing this article.Really thank you! Much obliged.

    http://progenpeptides.com/blog/Aicar

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...