Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1230 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Angliru said:
Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
Of course you conveniently fail to mention that his primary opposition both crashed out of the Tour that year, which may in some way explain the 7 minute margin of victory.

the clinic isn't interested in context(unless it suits them)
Bearing in mind the mental contortions required to suit a "Sky do nothing wrong" narrative, and the way history has been rewritten around a couple of pretty decent days several years before his instant transformation, I would say that while you definitely have a point about "The Clinic" having issues with inconsistency when putting things in context, you are just as guilty of that as anybody on the other side of the divide you're so keen to foster. After all, why would you paint a forum as a hive mind (which you yourself post in, but of course you're above all of that, it's just those other posters in the Clinic that are crazy) if not to discredit it? Sure, there have been some crazy theories in the Clinic's history, but even so, very few of them are as crazy as the series of events that apparently led to Freeman's laptop being missing and his not being sanctioned for gross professional negligence. There's a lot of smoke, but nobody's quite sure where the fire is, and some people have a better idea of how to find it than others.

But I guess the plan is, wait for an outlandish theory, paint the whole Clinic as insane tinfoil hat wearers, then when several posters protest, use this as justification that everybody in the Clinic is of the same opinion because they all rejected your hypothesis that they were all insane. You aren't the first and you won't be the last with that modus operandi. It's a good racket.
 
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
Ah, the xenophobia card.

Brilliant.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Breh said:
Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
Ah, the xenophobia card.

Brilliant.
Armstrong used it to say the French didn't like him becuase he was not French. I expect Brailsford to use it soon. He is going through the USPostal playbook at press conferences.

I think Walsh used it too.
 
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
When people use xenophobia in this context I wonder if they mean it or are not using the word correctly. Are you implying that people accuse Froome because he is a Brit/African? ...and/or Sky because the UK isn't a 'traditional' cycling country?

I agree that Froome is likely no dirty than any other champion, he's just the GT GC champ now, but I don't think that his origin is THE factor.
 
May 12, 2009
65
0
8,680
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
POP!!! BANG!!! BOOOM!!! PIP!!!

Hear that? That's the sound of heads exploding. Duck and cover peeps, this could get moist:
“Just before we started the race, we looked at Chris’ numbers and he was miles away from where we thought he needed to be,” admitted Brailsford. “When we looked at them and calculated where we needed to be, we thought it was right on the limit, you know?”

Rather embarrassed, I suggest that Froome looked to be carrying more weight than usual. That he almost looked ‘fat’.

“He was!” admitted Brailsford. “If we had started the race with Chris where he needed to be and everything went according to plan, then we might [have been] OK. Then he crashed before the prologue and we thought we were screwed, that was it,” concluded the Sky boss.
Read the rest on Rouleur
this Rouleur piece towing the SkyLine. Sifting through it, i found myself looking for signposts of journalistic competence, and sure enough, they made the Zoncolan a "partially unpaved climb".
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Breh said:
Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
Ah, the xenophobia card.

Brilliant.
Armstrong used it to say the French didn't like him becuase he was not French. I expect Brailsford to use it soon. He is going through the USPostal playbook at press conferences.

I think Walsh used it too.
The faux urine story was one, Walsh pushed the anti-British myth in his writings with Irish corner who happened to be Dutch, then just a bunch of drunk guys from all sorts of nations. But then at one point Brailsford was saying he wanted to win the Tour with a French rider.
 
Aug 30, 2012
152
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Bannockburn said:
This is patently incorrect. As soon as Froome is gone some other transparent fraud will come along and take his place. Been going on for 30 years now.
So let's get this clear: in today's League of Transparent Frauds there's Froome ... and no one else? It is only when Froome goes that ... another Transparent Fraud will arise? Or could it be that it is only then that the vocal few will see through another Fraud and declare him the new Dalai Lama of Doping?

Sandro Donati once gave David Walsh a piece of advice: "going after Lance Armstrong couldn't be what it was all about because the bigger picture was what mattered. Cycling was far more important than one competitor and if you pursue one and become too associated with that pursuit, that is not good." Walsh ignored it. The self-satisified keyboard warriors who believe they brought down LA ignore it.
To the first question, not even close. But, obviously, due to his overwhelming amount of success he gets a lot of attention, which of course is going to include criticisms and questions, as well as justifications and excuses, all depending on one's perspective. A star in any given sport is going to get far more attention for everything than some nobody, which seems like a rather obvious aspect of reality, but hey, apparently not to you.

Continuing with your inability to comprehend the most basic of contexts, to conclude I was implying Froome is the only fraud out there is simply absurd. The sport is littered with them and has been for a long time, and for that reason Donati's point is a good one. Forest for the trees and all.

But when Froome's days are over, some other top guy will come along and history unfortunately tells us he'll likely be charged up like so many of the rest, past and present. Maybe not, but let's be real -- most know where the smart money lies on these things.

That guy is going to get a lot of attention for everything he does, potential doping or otherwise, same as every big name before him.

How that implies an assumption that no other rider is just as fraudulent is beyond me.

I've often wondered if you're actually as obtuse as you seem to be at times or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing. Still not sure.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.

Where are the people defending Astana? Nibali? Riis? Rasmussen? Contador? Horner? Armstrong? Etc.

It is miniscule at best.

Sure some celebrate the show of above mentioned.


But think hard..

Who is really contesting them being dirty through and though.

If you see a difference with SKY, (looking at their PR machine from the get go). Then you are the one clinging to some fantasy about a brit world beater..

Look at cycling for 100 years.

There is nothing rational about pretending GT top x is only water and bread.

The difference between beleiving and enjoying is that one side is being played a fool.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
Dawg lost over a minute today. He will pull out now citing injuries sustained during the TT recon. But we all know its because he's riding pan y agua now uncle Cooky has gone.
You think Froome rode on only pan y agua at Barloworld? I don't.

I don't think he is riding on pan y agua now, but Cookson is no longer in charge and there may be a clause in his 1.4mill that he doesn't test positive or he loses the dosh so Sky who probably get 50% of the 1.4 are probably playing safe on the doping end of things. Just means no motor and no unlimited doping.
Target testing is a *** and Lappys new Dawg Kennel motor checking device won’t be helping. I’d say Froome is back at 2010 doping a little bit phase. Good to see :cool:
Yup :lol:
 
miguelindurain111 said:
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
Dawg lost over a minute today. He will pull out now citing injuries sustained during the TT recon. But we all know its because he's riding pan y agua now uncle Cooky has gone.
You think Froome rode on only pan y agua at Barloworld? I don't.

I don't think he is riding on pan y agua now, but Cookson is no longer in charge and there may be a clause in his 1.4mill that he doesn't test positive or he loses the dosh so Sky who probably get 50% of the 1.4 are probably playing safe on the doping end of things. Just means no motor and no unlimited doping.
Target testing is a *** and Lappys new Dawg Kennel motor checking device won’t be helping. I’d say Froome is back at 2010 doping a little bit phase. Good to see :cool:
Yup :lol:
My analysis and predications was about as useful as Lappys new x-ray machine! :cool:
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
ontheroad said:
Froome's major problem will always be the fact that there were 2 versions of the same cyclist - before and after August 2011.

Given the history of the sport there is no logical explanation for his transformation in such a short time period. If he had shown some level of pedigree there would still be plenty of scepticism but he wouldn't attract near the same level of derision that he currently does. Many other top cyclists are known dopers or were strongly suspected of doping but none attract the same level of derision that Froome presently does.

The other factor that works against him is the team that he is employed by. Big, brash, deceitful, arrogant, powerful and full of PR bluster, they have tried to take the public for a ride since very shortly after their inception. I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
OK, let's propose a few options:

A. Froome is a product of strictly confidential labaratorian experiment, launched by Sky and Murdoch money, that enabled 3rd tier rolleur reborn into the best rider in the world

B. Froome really had some chest infection or something, which he's surely not outspoken about. As a result, this disease (fake or real) allowed him to recieve dozens of TUEs and lead him to using as much doping as he needs to destroy any field

C. Combination of A & B

D. Prior 2011, Froome was handled completely incorrectly training- and specialization-wise, while working with Kerrison alongside with extreme weight loss discovered a hidden talent

E. Grotesque mixture out of A, B, C and D

What option would you go with?
Dopity-dope-doper!! Statistically proven to have gained > 15% FTP in a 3 week period. All that's left is to pick the method. Motors, blood, chemicals... Who cares!

John Swanson
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Bronstein said:
OK, so does this support or refute the suggestion...i.e, was Horner suddenly good enough to win a GT when he did because:

A) everyone else had stopped big time doping and he took a chance and got away with it
b) everyone including Horner had stopped big time doping and his natural abilities suddenly became relevant
c) doping was just the same as it had ever been, but suddenly for one race only, Horner found a magic formula that meant he was able to beat a fully doped field
Riddle me this! Why didn't Horner get a ride the following year?

John Swanson
 
miguelindurain111 said:
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
MartinGT said:
Dawg lost over a minute today. He will pull out now citing injuries sustained during the TT recon. But we all know its because he's riding pan y agua now uncle Cooky has gone.
You think Froome rode on only pan y agua at Barloworld? I don't.

I don't think he is riding on pan y agua now, but Cookson is no longer in charge and there may be a clause in his 1.4mill that he doesn't test positive or he loses the dosh so Sky who probably get 50% of the 1.4 are probably playing safe on the doping end of things. Just means no motor and no unlimited doping.
Target testing is a *** and Lappys new Dawg Kennel motor checking device won’t be helping. I’d say Froome is back at 2010 doping a little bit phase. Good to see :cool:
Yup :lol:
Lol
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Bronstein said:
OK, so does this support or refute the suggestion...i.e, was Horner suddenly good enough to win a GT when he did because:

A) everyone else had stopped big time doping and he took a chance and got away with it
b) everyone including Horner had stopped big time doping and his natural abilities suddenly became relevant
c) doping was just the same as it had ever been, but suddenly for one race only, Horner found a magic formula that meant he was able to beat a fully doped field
Riddle me this! Why didn't Horner get a ride the following year?

John Swanson

Riddle that into the Horner thread
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Bronstein said:
OK, so does this support or refute the suggestion...i.e, was Horner suddenly good enough to win a GT when he did because:

A) everyone else had stopped big time doping and he took a chance and got away with it
b) everyone including Horner had stopped big time doping and his natural abilities suddenly became relevant
c) doping was just the same as it had ever been, but suddenly for one race only, Horner found a magic formula that meant he was able to beat a fully doped field
Riddle me this! Why didn't Horner get a ride the following year?

John Swanson

Riddle that into the Horner thread
No thanks!

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
dacooley said:
ontheroad said:
Froome's major problem will always be the fact that there were 2 versions of the same cyclist - before and after August 2011.

Given the history of the sport there is no logical explanation for his transformation in such a short time period. If he had shown some level of pedigree there would still be plenty of scepticism but he wouldn't attract near the same level of derision that he currently does. Many other top cyclists are known dopers or were strongly suspected of doping but none attract the same level of derision that Froome presently does.

The other factor that works against him is the team that he is employed by. Big, brash, deceitful, arrogant, powerful and full of PR bluster, they have tried to take the public for a ride since very shortly after their inception. I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
OK, let's propose a few options:

A. Froome is a product of strictly confidential labaratorian experiment, launched by Sky and Murdoch money, that enabled 3rd tier rolleur reborn into the best rider in the world

B. Froome really had some chest infection or something, which he's surely not outspoken about. As a result, this disease (fake or real) allowed him to recieve dozens of TUEs and lead him to using as much doping as he needs to destroy any field

C. Combination of A & B

D. Prior 2011, Froome was handled completely incorrectly training- and specialization-wise, while working with Kerrison alongside with extreme weight loss discovered a hidden talent

E. Grotesque mixture out of A, B, C and D

What option would you go with?
Dopity-dope-doper!! Statistically proven to have gained > 15% FTP in a 3 week period. All that's left is to pick the method. Motors, blood, chemicals... Who cares!

John Swanson
wholeheartedly agreed, but the thing is doping's everywhere and froome by no means is a revolutionist in this scheme of things. he returned a positive test for salbutamol, but each of other big gc riders keep silent on this matter. had quintana, nibali, dimoulin or bardet claimed "Froome is a disgrace, he shouldn't be allowed to compete", it would've been a massive statement, I'd personally very much respect such a protest. but what we can read is at best nibali mumbling "that's really bad for the sport. i'm sure time will give us the right answers". it literally means nothing but all gc riders are doped, shrink with fear of getting caught and probably feel jealous of sky who most likely have an opportunity to dope up on on a higher level.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
POP!!! BANG!!! BOOOM!!! PIP!!!

Hear that? That's the sound of heads exploding. Duck and cover peeps, this could get moist:
“Just before we started the race, we looked at Chris’ numbers and he was miles away from where we thought he needed to be,” admitted Brailsford. “When we looked at them and calculated where we needed to be, we thought it was right on the limit, you know?”

Rather embarrassed, I suggest that Froome looked to be carrying more weight than usual. That he almost looked ‘fat’.

“He was!” admitted Brailsford. “If we had started the race with Chris where he needed to be and everything went according to plan, then we might [have been] OK. Then he crashed before the prologue and we thought we were screwed, that was it,” concluded the Sky boss.
Read the rest on Rouleur
I love this story.Except physically this is abject nonsense.

I know this will make you roll your eyes, as this busts a myth you dearly believe in.

It is impossible to loose weight quickly and keep power. You will loose muscle. So if his numbers were okay except his weight and he lost those two KG, his power numbers would also drop.

You post about heads exploding is thus based on a thorough misunderstanding of the human body, muscle buildup and weightloss. Indeed, it shows you are parroting nonsensical propaganda. Now considering you are an innocent fan this is okay, but SDB knows better.

Is the answer:

1. It's because science is wrong and Sky has a secret superduper method to loose weight in a controlled manner during a GT without losing power?
2. SDB has no clue of what he's talking about and Froome is doping behind is back?
3. SDB has a clue, knows this is a fantastic soundbite but also not the truth.

I await your explanation of this physical phenomenon with baited breath (it can go into the list of other very odd physical attributes of Froome, like being a Bilharzia super athlete, having an extraordinary high Salbutamol value after just a few puffs)

FMK, an honest question, considering the many (undeniable) lies of SDB and considering the really extraordinary medical history of Froome, why are you so upset about people going with the logical conclusion? Why is it that you go for the utterly outlandish notion?

Also, remember the last GT winner who had a life-altering disease and a miraculous recovery into the best GT rider of his generation?

Pop, bang, boom and pip indeed.... :rolleyes:
 

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
Singer01 said:
ontheroad said:
I suspect that if he was riding for another team and producing the same level of results, then he would gain a bit more respect.
Like Astana, who are far dirtier than sky have ever been (based on actual evidence rather than rumour, conjecture and hearsay), who are run by one of the most unrepentent dopers ever, and whose rider won the 2014 TDF by over 7 minutes. However there is about 30 posts on Nibali being a doper, and 1500+ pages about Froome.
Conclusion, nobody on here gives a **** about doping, but they do give a **** about xenophobia and personalities.
Of course you conveniently fail to mention that his primary opposition both crashed out of the Tour that year, which may in some way explain the 7 minute margin of victory.
Nibali, Landa and Quintana were in this Giro and were among those that Froome put to the sword were they? No, a bunch of second tier GC contenders, and Dumoulin who is completely not built for the stage that Froome did all the damage in.
 
Oct 25, 2016
16
0
2,530
Re: Re:

It is impossible to loose weight quickly and keep power. You will loose muscle. So if his numbers were okay except his weight and he lost those two KG, his power numbers would also drop.
A ketogenic diet inhibits gluconeogenesis and has a protein-sparing effect. I am riding 8 hours in a fasted state, and 70% of the energy comes from body fats. In one single ride I can burn up to 300g of fats without muscle loss.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS