Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 108 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
spalco said:
I understand why Froome saying those thing ****es you off, but... hypothetically imagine that there is a clean rider with a palmares like Froome's, wouldn't you expect that person to say or at least think exactly things like that?
Froome never said they work hardest. Another hog's trolling allusion.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
In short no matter what is written about Froome in articles, hog, sceptic & co will be able to transform this into cynical trolling form.

In general all the things happening in this thread simply enrages. I even don't know what this mass wheeze can be compared to, but I'll try to explain. There is backroom criminal institute in the countries of ex USSR. Say, a criminal who puts into jail for the 1st time is considered a total nullity among other criminals. But when for example served 2-3 terms and go to prison for the 4th time, he becomes sort of an authority and takes a lot of respect, because he has a huge jail experience lol.

Something similar happens here. So called anti doping fighters hog and others simply divide dopers on legitimate dopers and outlaw dopers (Froome, Wiggins, Porte) without ANY PROPER ARGUMENTATION. All you have is blind foolhardy hatred. Do you care what Froome really says? Absolutely not, because you brain automatically works not on stuff he really says, but on how you should spice his words up to serve them in light of doping. It is very dangerous think not to want to deal with reality so much guys.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
spalco said:
Yeah, that's what I meant. There's literally nothing Froome could say that wouldn't lead to sarcastic responses in this thread.
He can show all his blood values, i think that might help, no?
 
airstream said:
In short no matter what is written about Froome in articles, hog, sceptic & co will be able to transform this into cynical trolling form.

In general all the things happening in this thread simply enrages. I even don't know what this mass wheeze can be compared to, but I'll try to explain. There is backroom criminal institute in the countries of ex USSR. Say, a criminal who puts into jail for the 1st time is considered a total nullity among other criminals. But when for example served 2-3 terms and go to prison for the 4th time, he becomes sort of an authority and takes a lot of respect, because he has a huge jail experience lol.

Something similar happens here. So called anti doping fighters hog and others simply divide dopers on legitimate dopers and outlaw dopers (Froome, Wiggins, Porte) without ANY PROPER ARGUMENTATION. All you have is blind foolhardy hatred. Do you care what Froome really says? Absolutely not, because you brain automatically works not on stuff he really says, but on how you should spice his words up to serve them in light of doping. It is very dangerous think not to want to deal with reality so much guys.
You are right to a large extent but look at it this way. If you regard the clinic more as a comedy stage for the likes of Hog to strut his stuff, you can just sit back and enjoy the show. If you want something more cerebral, you can enjoy The Hitch, who just makes stuff up...think of him like the story tellers of Jemaa L Fna. He's actually ok as long as he remembers that he's not really The Hitch. For more earthy entertainment, just look upon it as cyclists in the stocks being pelted by toothless, tomato weilding assailants in some medieval ritual.... "He's not the Tour de France winner, he's a very naughty boy".

It's only if you actually, seriously, would like to see the issue of doping being tackled, without all the irrational hatred of individual riders, that you'll get frustrated and upset. I hope this helps.
 
spalco said:
I understand why Froome saying those thing ****es you off, but... hypothetically imagine that there is a clean rider with a palmares like Froome's, wouldn't you expect that person to say or at least think exactly things like that?
No I wouldn't. I was just going to post that those comments should do little to reassure anyone but the true believers. He is not adressing doping in any of those statements he is dismissing it in all. Throwing it under the carpet and shutting the blinds.

Away from cycling if people dismiss questions like that they are automatically assumed to be lying. Even people hiding something learn to go into detail or provide arguments. If your only reaction to a legitimate question is immediate dismissal everyone will naturally be suspicious.

Is this supposed to be some sort of double bluff from froome?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Miburo said:
He can show all his blood values, i think that might help, no?
Yes. You'd think, given the questions that inevitably get asked, that people would start working on a better response.
 
Miburo said:
He can show all his blood values, i think that might help, no?
But ignoring the theory that Froome is "protected", what would that prove if the anti-doping experts can't find any proof of doping in those values?

The Hitch said:
Away from cycling if people dismiss questions like that they are automatically assumed to be lying. Even people hiding something learn to go into detail or provide arguments. If your only reaction to a legitimate question is immediate dismissal everyone will naturally be suspicious.

Is this supposed to be some sort of double bluff from froome?
I think if you're asked the same question 10 times a day, anyone would grow tired of it eventually.
 
I have to admit though, that "Shaped in Africa" article is ridiculously hagiographic. I don't know how much of that is Froome's fault, but even as someone who likes him and roots for him, that's just dripping with flattery and unreasonable conclusions.

The author of that piece definitely risks looking like a huge idiot sometime in the future.
 
His results on the South African circuit were mediocre. Edwards remembers flashes of brilliance when Froome would ride near the front before he got dropped. Yet most races were around Johannesburg, where the terrain is flat, and rarely stretched past 100 kilometres. Froome needed something more gruelling, like a European race, to reveal his winning capacity for suffering.
:rolleyes: Jesus Christ.

His parents worried about his future for they did not see much point in bike-riding. Jane Froome had her doubts confirmed when, watching him ride for the first time in that same race, she saw her son being shelled from the back of the peloton. As Edwards drove the team car she asked him a gentle yet pointed question: "Is Chris any good at riding a bike?"

Edwards did not have a convincing answer; but he knew Froome was exceedingly bright and that "he smashed out the distinctions at university. Chris's intelligence is a huge factor in his career."
No question about that. The Bilharzia story is genius really. The perfect crime.
 
Jul 29, 2009
118
0
0
he was getting routinely mediocre results in short flat races round Jo'burg because he could only shine in harder races - "I just need to step up in difficulty and I won't be off the back any more " - this really insults my intelligence :mad:

seems Bilharzia works exactly opposite to EPO on red blood cells- so what would be the routine treatment - large doses of EPO?
 
That intelligence has strengthened his bond with Tim Kerrison, Sky's deeply scientific head of performance. Clarity and rigour link Kerrison and Robbie Nilsen, the attorney who helped Froome unleash his intellect in the cycling domain when they started an under-23 team together at the Hi-Q cycling academy in Johannesburg.

The attorney and the student lost themselves in the science of cycling. Nilsen, who dreamed of one day coaching a South African in the Tour de France, offered Froome structure and a tangible intellectual partnership. They were fanatical about uncovering the secrets of sporting improvement and Nilsen recognised that "Chris had a hell of talent – but it was absolutely untapped. It felt as if we were doing these amazing field experiments to make him a much better rider. His true ability started to emerge."

Froome was amusing when describing to me his chaotic debut at the 2006 world under-23 championships. He had blagged his way into the event by using the Kenyan cycling association's Hotmail account to log his entry as the country's sole rider. Arriving alone in Salzburg, and carrying his bikes and bags, he got lost in the rain. Froome's sodden map fell apart and he was 20 minutes late for the managers' meeting where officials reacted suspiciously. It took Froome a while to convince them he was Kenya's 'manager'.
:eek:

FFS.
 
JRanton said:
Even Froome's biggest fan would have to admit that this is the most remarkable transformation ever seen in the history of cycling.
Not a fan at all and I agree that it is a remarkable transformation. It is either a brilliant, positive, inspirational story OR a giant fraud. The thing is, we don't really know yet, either way.

We all know how the last, similar example, played out. That doesn't, however, mean that Froome is Armstrong Mkii any more than SKY are US Postal Mkii. Time will tell.
 
spalco said:
You mean whether he's clean or not and how his performance boost was possible? You seriously think he's not asked that all the time?
You have any evidence that he gets asked it all the time? More importantly can you find any record of froome answering the question honestly and at lenght? If not then your observation that he may behave like a liar because he has heard the question too many times before is invalid. He's only been superman 22 months and Wiggins has been the bigger fish for about 18 of those. This is the first time in his life that anyone cares what he has to say. yet already he's giving the **** off defense rather than answering the question honestly.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
No_Balls said:
He is so juiced up that he needs to go offensive not raising any alarms and doubts. Only problem is it works in the different direction. He looks even more shady with all this "i am winning because" and "no dopers is winning now".

If you gonna lie, lie big kind of.
Doperz aren't winning 'cause the Dawg is beating them into second place.

 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
goggalor said:
Doperz aren't winning 'cause the Dawg is beating them into second place.

Yea but santa was only a climbing domestique in 2010. His sudden improvement was so obvious to the peloton.

Froome is a different story, right peloton? I wonder why cause i don't see any difference.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY