Re: Re:
:lol: :lol: :lol: Priceless...you don't really get the science behind cycling do you :lol:
Logic-is-your-friend said:Bushman said:Logic-is-your-friend said:So Froome would rather have doping insinuations/accusations regarding watts/kilo (if he in reality weighs less) needed for a certain effort, than disclosing his actual weight, which would give adversaries a tactical advantage in estimating what numbers he can push?Bushman said:I think the problem is that some teams are reluctant to give out that kind of information. I remember a few years back in the Tour when Froome went mental there were some discussions about his watt/kg and if it seemed too good to be true. Sky released his numbers and listed his weight around 68 or 70 kg or so. There is no way in hell that Froome in absolute top shape in his prime was anywhere near 70 kg.
With Van Baarle it’s difficult to say because he used to be primarily a classics rider who could climb a bit as well so obviously he was a lot heavier then. If I were to guess I’d say he is in low 70’s now but it’s impressive nonetheless.
Well, somehow that's not surprising i guess.
I’m not sure I read your post correctly but the purpose of listing him heavier than he really is seemingly was to make his numbers look less impressive and therefore avoid accusations of cheating, yes.
How on earth is saying you're even heavier than you are, make his efforts look LESS impressive? Because the fatter you are, the better you climb?
:lol: :lol: :lol: Priceless...you don't really get the science behind cycling do you :lol: