Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1207 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2011
76
0
0
The "mostly gained time on the descent" argument is stupid.

Yes, he gained time on the descent, that's a fact. He also gained time on the ascent. Dumoulin and co. made a tactical error by waiting for Reichenbach, that can account for some time too. Also, it's different when you gain some time on a descent and you keep it for a while, but that's not what we've seen yesterday.

To be so much faster on every descent - what about the factor of fatigue? When you're tired, you can't pay as much attention as you should. You are more prone to make mistakes, to misjudge a corner, to crash... So when you are tired, you won't descend on full speed.
Froome's speed and constant gains tells me that he was a lot less tired than anyone else, even when he was climbing so much faster for so long, alone. So how is this possible?

I think we've seen a motor. He was just... way too powerful.
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
That's interesting, but the false flat before Jafferau should really not be counted towards the time gained while descending. It's more similar to climbing than descending as there is no technique involved.
From 23 to go to 7.3 to go - 24s.
Yep that's true, so he gained about 1min 2s on the descents and 2min 21s on the ascents.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
claude cat said:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/05/only-love-can-break-your-heart-a-lamentation-on-chris-froome/

In moments like this, it is sad to have to say this out loud: The sport of cycling belongs to the fans. These are good people whose patience and passion has been tested for decades now. These are the good people who ultimately enable the business of pro cycling to exist and flourish. These who are the good people who camp out on remote mountain roads to celebrate a beautiful sport and be within an arm’s reach of their heroes for a few fleeting seconds.

And Chris Froome is shitting all over these people.
What a load of sanctimonious bs. This is exactly the sort of stage people will remember and talk about for decades - this kind of drama is precisely what keeps the sport relevant and in the mainstream.

And it would hardly be less suspicious if Froome didn't exist and a TTer like Dumoulin had ended up putting 5 minutes into his closest rivals instead.

The only people who seem to have not enjoyed it are those who are massive fanboys of other riders primarily, rather than fans of the sport. This was great entertainment.
oh the stage was entertaining,in a perverse sense...like 2 girls 1 cup (dont google it) entertaining :lol:
 
I think the Sestriere climb was the most ridiculous. Nobody ever gains time there alone against three decent riders- reichenbach would've actually helped there. It's usually a climb in which someone with a 20s gap waits for the two or three riders behind. And Froome gained a minute on a pure power climb.

It's also worth mentioning that people are counting Sauze di Cesana-Oulx as a descent, but that's about 3% downhill, so all about power. Sestriere-Sauze di Cesana is the actual descent, and it's about 6km. But even if we account for the 10s Froome gained when Dumoulin waited for reichenbach, he still gained 35s on false flat.
 
Calmejane, a stage winner in last year’s Tour de France, tweeted: “I am not judging the performance, more the inescapable logic of being transparent on his performance data when he is in a storm and when everyone doubts his performances.” From Jeremy Whittle piece today
 
Re:

Narce_ said:
The "mostly gained time on the descent" argument is stupid.

Yes, he gained time on the descent, that's a fact. He also gained time on the ascent. Dumoulin and co. made a tactical error by waiting for Reichenbach, that can account for some time too. Also, it's different when you gain some time on a descent and you keep it for a while, but that's not what we've seen yesterday.

To be so much faster on every descent - what about the factor of fatigue? When you're tired, you can't pay as much attention as you should. You are more prone to make mistakes, to misjudge a corner, to crash... So when you are tired, you won't descend on full speed.
Froome's speed and constant gains tells me that he was a lot less tired than anyone else, even when he was climbing so much faster for so long, alone. So how is this possible?

I think we've seen a motor. He was just... way too powerful.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
macbindle said:
The cod psychological analysis of Froome based on what he said about himself as a kid is naive. All of these riders are highly unusual people, ruthless, competitive.
I agree, that sadistic background not at all why he did it - and pretty much all World Tour cyclists had to be obsessive about their self-image as "winners" in order to get to the top level in the first place. Collection of extreme psychological specimens
But not all of them want to defy authority, by sticking it in their faces. Clearly if he could go from 80 kilometers out from the finish, he could also have "won" in a less-conspicuous way. And previously he said in a press conference that he didn't even expect to contend in this Giro
So, what makes Froome exceptional in that particular way, that part is a debate you can have with The Hitch, whether a fourteen-year-old can have any sense of morality, and whether that says something about personality. Clearly he is acting-out a grudge against someone

So what about Coppi and his similar escapades...with subsequent unashamed confirmation of doping? (I know....I know...different era, different moral landscape)

What I am getting at is the danger of using highly selective and unreliable evidence to support a view.

Froome as psycho killer is a difficult trope to accept for somebody that looks like a human x-ray.
 
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
MartinGT said:
Calmejane, a stage winner in last year’s Tour de France, tweeted: “I am not judging the performance, more the inescapable logic of being transparent on his performance data "when he is in a storm" and when everyone doubts his performances.” From Jeremy Whittle piece today
quand on est dans la tourmente = "while we ar e in turmoil" meaning, in Calmejean's opinion, Froome is $#%%ing-up the sport of cycling for everyone
Yes he was claryfing after this tweet;

https://twitter.com/L_Calmejane/status/1000032445566275584?s=19
 
Surely they don't really believe that when ten years from now people look at cycling history they will say - merckx won 5 and doped, in durian won 5 and doped Armstrong won 5 and doped, pantani did the double and doped, contador won 9 or whatever gts and doped but froome won tour vuelta, did a Landis, 4 tours but was clean
 
Re:

Narce_ said:
The "mostly gained time on the descent" argument is stupid.

Yes, he gained time on the descent, that's a fact. He also gained time on the ascent. Dumoulin and co. made a tactical error by waiting for Reichenbach, that can account for some time too. Also, it's different when you gain some time on a descent and you keep it for a while, but that's not what we've seen yesterday.

To be so much faster on every descent - what about the factor of fatigue? When you're tired, you can't pay as much attention as you should. You are more prone to make mistakes, to misjudge a corner, to crash... So when you are tired, you won't descend on full speed.
Froome's speed and constant gains tells me that he was a lot less tired than anyone else, even when he was climbing so much faster for so long, alone. So how is this possible?

I think we've seen a motor. He was just... way too powerful.
I remember the tour think it was 2016, when froome won by 4 minutes, 10 seconds of which came on a descent and the walshes and Moores were crying all summer - he won the tour by being a better descender
 
The Hitch said:
Surely they don't really believe that when ten years from now people look at cycling history they will say - merckx won 5 and doped, in durian won 5 and doped Armstrong won 5 and doped, pantani did the double and doped, contador won 9 or whatever gts and doped but froome won tour vuelta, did a Landis, 4 tours but was clean
Only the ignorant fanboys
 
The Hitch said:
Surely they don't really believe that when ten years from now people look at cycling history they will say - merckx won 5 and doped, in durian won 5 and doped Armstrong won 5 and doped, pantani did the double and doped, contador won 9 or whatever gts and doped but froome won tour vuelta, did a Landis, 4 tours but was clean
But Brits never cheat and never lie! They still believe Farah is 100% Quorn.
 
The Hitch said:
Surely they don't really believe that when ten years from now people look at cycling history they will say - merckx won 5 and doped, in durian won 5 and doped Armstrong won 5 and doped, pantani did the double and doped, contador won 9 or whatever gts and doped but froome won tour vuelta, did a Landis, 4 tours but was clean
Does anybody believe that now?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS