Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1006 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Alpe73 said:
Listen, you and some of the other rigid doubters on here don't know Chris Froome from Lapu Lapu. He's done nothing to you. (Spare us the wailing, hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and crank biting about how he's ruining our beloved sport). Yet, you vehemently tar him as a cheater, a liar, a nut job, wife's a nut job, depressive ... to name a few ... without any real evidence ... not Duplo evidence ... real ---ing proof.

If it were done in the spirit of sports banter (my team versus your team, your Ricky ... my Manny), that'd be understandable ... but to the tune of 50,000!!! posts
... and that's only a coupla you ... you never let the ---k up with your foolishness. It doesn't seem that you're that much anti-doping, per se ... but more anti success, anti nationality, anti- good looks ... whatever. That the responibility to disrobe the Emperor rests upon your shoulders because 'he looked at you hard' or because the Battle of the ----ing Boyne, or some other good ----ing reason.
that.
I´ve seen on here and twitter incredible stuff written about Froome, that go beyond the sport of cycling.

ps. I am aware that all the narrative of winning clean is wrong/untrue. and Sky made huge mistakes.
 
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.

I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
WTF is with the endless walls of text (that I won't read)? Dude made a mathematically proven transition in a matter of three weeks. No doubt about it. The only question is how and why! Badzilla doesn't fit. Crash diet - losing the fat doesn't either. So... What's the best explanation?

John Swanson
 
Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
WTF is with the endless walls of text (that I won't read)? Dude made a mathematically proven transition in a matter of three weeks. No doubt about it. The only question is how and why! Badzilla doesn't fit. Crash diet - losing the fat doesn't either. So... What's the best explanation?

John Swanson
It is a little strange that the Froome boosters keep turning up in the clinic to rehearse the claim that since there’s no “proof” nothing can be said.

An extension of the “fake news” mentality I guess.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
ScienceIsCool said:
WTF is with the endless walls of text (that I won't read)? Dude made a mathematically proven transition in a matter of three weeks. No doubt about it. The only question is how and why! Badzilla doesn't fit. Crash diet - losing the fat doesn't either. So... What's the best explanation?

John Swanson
It is a little strange that the Froome boosters keep turning up in the clinic to rehearse the claim that since there’s no “proof” nothing can be said.

An extension of the “fake news” mentality I guess.
"Never tested positive"! :D
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.

I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
My first post ... ever ... in this thread (so, sorry, no, I can't take credit for contributing to the mutha ---- ing spiralling of this thread to its iconic magnitude) ... was to refute JS's assertion that prior to 2011, Chris Froome was " a nobody, with no talent and no potential." In essence, I was calling into question the 'predictive validity' (so to speak) of John's measurement of (Froome's) potential.

Now, as Brown Bobby so aptly argued ... John's assertion is total rubbish, fabulously wrong ... in that Froome accomplished exactly, numerous times over, indeed, what John claimed (retroactively) Froome was incapable of achieving. Let's leave that one for dead.

The rest of you, who concur with John are also on the hook for this miserable fail. On the other hand, you tea leaf-reading, lucky stick throwing, penny-rubbing, race program marking clairvoyants who bet on Dawg back in early 2011 ... got a mutha ----in big pay day coming. Sweet.

Now, I know what John probably means, as does BB and host of others ... was what he meant to say was that prior to 2011, Chris Froome "was a nobody, had no talent and certainly did not have the potential to win a GT, clean. Now, I can see myself warming up to that somewhat. I agree with John and many posters here that Froome's past performances are "indicators" (in real time) that he may not (have had) what it takes. Could I have been wrong? :eek:

Bango ... again. Miserable fail. He's done it ... 4Ts and a V. To anyone that matters ... that is ... anyone that can affect his results, his contract, his endorsements, his fan base ... he is, as we speak, for all intents and purposes, clean. If not ... prove it. That's where the needle's stuck, mate.

Probability. Ah, there's the rub.
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
ScienceIsCool said:
WTF is with the endless walls of text (that I won't read)? Dude made a mathematically proven transition in a matter of three weeks. No doubt about it. The only question is how and why! Badzilla doesn't fit. Crash diet - losing the fat doesn't either. So... What's the best explanation?

John Swanson
It is a little strange that the Froome boosters keep turning up in the clinic to rehearse the claim that since there’s no “proof” nothing can be said.

An extension of the “fake news” mentality I guess.
"Say away, Merrill."

Just sayin that the thread looks a wee bit tawdry. A bit of a scratching post, maybe.

A Froome booster? Did you mean 'boaster'? (I was admonished earlier for 'boasting.') Yeah, I canvas door to door each night on the way home from Scouts.

"Hell no! Goddamnit. Froome Dawg ain't never done me no harm. You either. You wanna boycott someone? You ought to start with the goddamn barber that ----ed up your head." - S.D.W. ;) BSDOD
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
The whole Jiffygate affair has given the impression of Brailsford positioning the teams woes as confined to the class of 2012.

This is something the press really haven’t ceased on:

1. Most of Wiggins super lean climbing lieutenants continued at service of Froome after 2012
2. Freeman’s stockpiling was reported as being pretty recent (I think 2016).

Froome has sought to distance himself from Brailsford as the ‘clean boy’ but the above 2 points make this difficult to believe.
 
Re:

B_Ugli said:
The whole Jiffygate affair has given the impression of Brailsford positioning the teams woes as confined to the class of 2012.

This is something the press really haven’t ceased on:

1. Most of Wiggins super lean climbing lieutenants continued at service of Froome after 2012
2. Freeman’s stockpiling was reported as being pretty recent (I think 2016).

Froome has sought to distance himself from Brailsford as the ‘clean boy’ but the above 2 points make this difficult to believe.
Even little Cav popped on to a private jet for Freeman’s special recovery treatment. Along with Brailsford refusing to separate British Cycling and Sky, clearly he needs a method to ship in the drugs off Sky books.
 
Alpe73 said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.

I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
My first post ... ever ... in this thread (so, sorry, no, I can't take credit for contributing to the mutha ---- ing spiralling of this thread to its iconic magnitude) ... was to refute JS's assertion that prior to 2011, Chris Froome was " a nobody, with no talent and no potential." In essence, I was calling into question the 'predictive validity' (so to speak) of John's measurement of (Froome's) potential.

Now, as Brown Bobby so aptly argued ... John's assertion is total rubbish, fabulously wrong ... in that Froome accomplished exactly, numerous times over, indeed, what John claimed (retroactively) Froome was incapable of achieving. Let's leave that one for dead.

The rest of you, who concur with John are also on the hook for this miserable fail. On the other hand, you tea leaf-reading, lucky stick throwing, penny-rubbing, race program marking clairvoyants who bet on Dawg back in early 2011 ... got a mutha ----in big pay day coming. Sweet.

Now, I know what John probably means, as does BB and host of others ... was what he meant to say was that prior to 2011, Chris Froome "was a nobody, had no talent and certainly did not have the potential to win a GT, clean. Now, I can see myself warming up to that somewhat. I agree with John and many posters here that Froome's past performances are "indicators" (in real time) that he may not (have had) what it takes. Could I have been wrong? :eek:

Bango ... again. Miserable fail. He's done it ... 4Ts and a V. To anyone that matters ... that is ... anyone that can affect his results, his contract, his endorsements, his fan base ... he is, as we speak, for all intents and purposes, clean. If not ... prove it. That's where the needle's stuck, mate.

Probability. Ah, there's the rub.
it's as though maths and armstrong never happened....
 
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.

I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
My first post ... ever ... in this thread (so, sorry, no, I can't take credit for contributing to the mutha ---- ing spiralling of this thread to its iconic magnitude) ... was to refute JS's assertion that prior to 2011, Chris Froome was " a nobody, with no talent and no potential." In essence, I was calling into question the 'predictive validity' (so to speak) of John's measurement of (Froome's) potential.

Now, as Brown Bobby so aptly argued ... John's assertion is total rubbish, fabulously wrong ... in that Froome accomplished exactly, numerous times over, indeed, what John claimed (retroactively) Froome was incapable of achieving. Let's leave that one for dead.

The rest of you, who concur with John are also on the hook for this miserable fail. On the other hand, you tea leaf-reading, lucky stick throwing, penny-rubbing, race program marking clairvoyants who bet on Dawg back in early 2011 ... got a mutha ----in big pay day coming. Sweet.

Now, I know what John probably means, as does BB and host of others ... was what he meant to say was that prior to 2011, Chris Froome "was a nobody, had no talent and certainly did not have the potential to win a GT, clean. Now, I can see myself warming up to that somewhat. I agree with John and many posters here that Froome's past performances are "indicators" (in real time) that he may not (have had) what it takes. Could I have been wrong? :eek:

Bango ... again. Miserable fail. He's done it ... 4Ts and a V. To anyone that matters ... that is ... anyone that can affect his results, his contract, his endorsements, his fan base ... he is, as we speak, for all intents and purposes, clean. If not ... prove it. That's where the needle's stuck, mate.

Probability. Ah, there's the rub.
it's as though maths and armstrong never happened....
Considering your statement ... Maths sure didn't happen for you, bro. For that matter, irony either. :eek:
 
gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.

I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
My first post ... ever ... in this thread (so, sorry, no, I can't take credit for contributing to the mutha ---- ing spiralling of this thread to its iconic magnitude) ... was to refute JS's assertion that prior to 2011, Chris Froome was " a nobody, with no talent and no potential." In essence, I was calling into question the 'predictive validity' (so to speak) of John's measurement of (Froome's) potential.

Now, as Brown Bobby so aptly argued ... John's assertion is total rubbish, fabulously wrong ... in that Froome accomplished exactly, numerous times over, indeed, what John claimed (retroactively) Froome was incapable of achieving. Let's leave that one for dead.

The rest of you, who concur with John are also on the hook for this miserable fail. On the other hand, you tea leaf-reading, lucky stick throwing, penny-rubbing, race program marking clairvoyants who bet on Dawg back in early 2011 ... got a mutha ----in big pay day coming. Sweet.

Now, I know what John probably means, as does BB and host of others ... was what he meant to say was that prior to 2011, Chris Froome "was a nobody, had no talent and certainly did not have the potential to win a GT, clean. Now, I can see myself warming up to that somewhat. I agree with John and many posters here that Froome's past performances are "indicators" (in real time) that he may not (have had) what it takes. Could I have been wrong? :eek:

Bango ... again. Miserable fail. He's done it ... 4Ts and a V. To anyone that matters ... that is ... anyone that can affect his results, his contract, his endorsements, his fan base ... he is, as we speak, for all intents and purposes, clean. If not ... prove it. That's where the needle's stuck, mate.

Probability. Ah, there's the rub.
it's as though maths and armstrong never happened....
no way........way ;)
 
pastronef said:
fmk_RoI said:
MartinGT said:
So when the Dawg takes the Giro Tour double we can all banish the 'not enough recover time' myth and its because all the other riders dont take their own pillows?
Except ...
2017: 33 days (May 28 to Jul 1)
2018: 40 days (May 27 to Jul 7)

zzzing
here's that additional week
Could also argue that the extra week makes it even more difficult to stay on form for an extra week.

Remember when in 2012 and 2013 Sky claimed a rider needed 6 months of prep to be on form for the Tour? Now they can launch a quick prep into the Giro then keep it for 80 days?
 
The Hitch said:
pastronef said:
fmk_RoI said:
MartinGT said:
So when the Dawg takes the Giro Tour double we can all banish the 'not enough recover time' myth and its because all the other riders dont take their own pillows?
Except ...
2017: 33 days (May 28 to Jul 1)
2018: 40 days (May 27 to Jul 7)

zzzing
here's that additional week
Could also argue that the extra week makes it even more difficult to stay on form for an extra week.

Remember when in 2012 and 2013 Sky claimed a rider needed 6 months of prep to be on form for the Tour? Now they can launch a quick prep into the Giro then keep it for 80 days?
Round here you can argue that black is white. And people will probably believe you, if you say white is doping...
 
fmk_RoI said:
The Hitch said:
pastronef said:
fmk_RoI said:
MartinGT said:
So when the Dawg takes the Giro Tour double we can all banish the 'not enough recover time' myth and its because all the other riders dont take their own pillows?
Except ...
2017: 33 days (May 28 to Jul 1)
2018: 40 days (May 27 to Jul 7)

zzzing
here's that additional week
Could also argue that the extra week makes it even more difficult to stay on form for an extra week.

Remember when in 2012 and 2013 Sky claimed a rider needed 6 months of prep to be on form for the Tour? Now they can launch a quick prep into the Giro then keep it for 80 days?
Round here you can argue that black is white. And people will probably believe you, if you say white is doping...
round there you can stock up on nutella and then tell journos its bad for you...and they'd probably believe you...
 
gillan1969 said:
fmk_RoI said:
The Hitch said:
pastronef said:
fmk_RoI said:
Except ...
2017: 33 days (May 28 to Jul 1)
2018: 40 days (May 27 to Jul 7)

zzzing
here's that additional week
Could also argue that the extra week makes it even more difficult to stay on form for an extra week.

Remember when in 2012 and 2013 Sky claimed a rider needed 6 months of prep to be on form for the Tour? Now they can launch a quick prep into the Giro then keep it for 80 days?
Round here you can argue that black is white. And people will probably believe you, if you say white is doping...
round there you can stock up on nutella and then tell journos its bad for you...and they'd probably believe you...
I was in Lidl the other day and saw this being sold. It looked like pooh in a jar. Ain't no way that's good for you.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
yaco said:
Imagine if Froome does the double - This forum will need extra band-with ! I think doing the Giro/TDF double will shorten Froome's career.
Isn't it no different to doing the TDF/Vuelta double every year ?
Froome will do four consecutive GT's - TDF/Vuelta 2017 and Giro/TDF 2018 - That's 84 GT days in 8 months - Quintana did the same in 2016 and 2017, and was dead at the 2017 TDF - And Froome is doing this at 33.
 
Re:

yaco said:
Imagine if Froome does the double - This forum will need extra band-with ! I think doing the Giro/TDF double will shorten Froome's career.

Well, when he holds all three GTs simultaneously, then goes on to complete the triple crown of them in the same year.

Then, THEN you will know full melt down.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
bigcog said:
yaco said:
Imagine if Froome does the double - This forum will need extra band-with ! I think doing the Giro/TDF double will shorten Froome's career.
Isn't it no different to doing the TDF/Vuelta double every year ?
Froome will do four consecutive GT's - TDF/Vuelta 2017 and Giro/TDF 2018 - That's 84 GT days in 8 months - Quintana did the same in 2016 and 2017, and was dead at the 2017 TDF - And Froome is doing this at 33.
Hard to be dead when your bike rides itself.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY