Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1238 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
 
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
Yep, talent and genetics is a very broad spectrum, and shaky ground I think for making objective statements.

I think it was Garry Kasparov who said the ability to work hard, motivate and apply yourself is one of the most important natural talents that exists in sport. Which is something Froome excels at. If a physical genetic freak like Jan Ullrich would have had that, Armstrong may have been little more than a footnote in cycling history.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
ahsoe said:
dacooley said:
macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
I think most in here acknowledge, that Froome as well as all other pro cyclists of course can improve in non-doping ways throughout their career. And of course Froome has done this also.

But one could argue, that without a heavy, in Froome's case, extremely effective doping program, he would still be way off his current level. All cyclists improve technique etc. during their career. And therefore, perhaps not 100% of his success, but close to it, is due to doping.
This is nonsense though. Even if he is on a massive full-scale doping programme, the like of which we have never seen, you still have to have incredible mental strength and motivation to continue dominating the sport for six years and counting. Countless dopers come along and do something impressive for a year or two before getting caught or just fading back to the pack.

It's something very under-rated in Froome I think - the mental strength to fight his way to become a professional rider, given his background, and then to stay at the top of the sport for such a long time. It takes a resilience and toughness that most don't have. Wiggins, for example, could never have done what Froome has, even with identical clinical assistance

And this carries over into his training as well. He's won races, in part, thanks to taking time on the descents in the last couple of years. Something universally regarded to be a huge weakness of his when he first started winning GTs. Whatever he is taking, the guy also has an incredible work ethic and drive to improve and stay at the top.
I agree with you to some extend. But I would argue that most of the professional cyclists have mental strength and a high work ethic just in order to make it as a pro. Of course Froome can be slightly more determined than his competitors, but it would still not explain his massive improvement and constant high level since 2011.

It might be the case, that he is simply more willing to go all in doping-wise, that distinguishes him from his competitors. In addition to the fact, that it seems, that whatever he is using is working extremely well for him.
 
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
 
Re: Re:

ahsoe said:
I agree with you to some extend. But I would argue that most of the professional cyclists have mental strength and a high work ethic just in order to make it as a pro. Of course Froome can be slightly more determined than his competitors, but it would still not explain his massive improvement and constant high level since 2011.

It might be the case, that he is simply more willing to go all in doping-wise, that distinguishes him from his competitors. In addition to the fact, that it seems, that whatever he is using is working extremely well for him.
Absolutely. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that Froome is dominating cycling for the last six years, mostly because of his mental strength. ;) Far from it, of course the physiological advantages of doping play the main role. I'm not convinced though that he is more willing to go all in doping wise than his competitors. Probably he responds better than many, but I think other non-clinic factors do contribute a fair bit to why he has been so successful.

There are lot of dopers in cycling, and between them, I think superior mental strength, work ethic, motivation and resilience can make the difference between someone who wins the odd big race or regularly top 10s, and someone who wins GTs year after year.
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
ahsoe said:
dacooley said:
macbindle said:
94th in the Tour of Poland 2011.
3 weeks later nearly won the Vuelta. 2nd place with only 13 seconds difference.

Maybe Michelle hung up one of those motivational posters in the loo and that's what made the difference.
the nature of august 2011 transformation will most certainly remain unsolved. thinking it had nothing to do with heavy doping program is idiotism, but ascribing 100% of froome's success to doping is nonsense ditto.

i presume one of the secrets is picking up doping cocktail which helped to master work on extremely small gearing. possibly top-end doping program revealed an ability of his cardiovascular system in a new way.
I think most in here acknowledge, that Froome as well as all other pro cyclists of course can improve in non-doping ways throughout their career. And of course Froome has done this also.

But one could argue, that without a heavy, in Froome's case, extremely effective doping program, he would still be way off his current level. All cyclists improve technique etc. during their career. And therefore, perhaps not 100% of his success, but close to it, is due to doping.
that's the case. however i'd gladly see at least one pro reaching wt level without doping, as getting stronger due to doping take kind of talent as well. though, I'd never agree to a statement something like 'froome's success consists of 98% doping, 2% hardwork and 0% talent, while the same ration for any other big gun looks like 34-33-33". -)

DFA123 said:
Even if he is on a massive full-scale doping programme, the like of which we have never seen, you still have to have incredible mental strength and motivation to continue dominating the sport for six years and counting.
Sorry, but it's mostly an off-top. Suchlike definitions are inappropriate when it comes to clinics discussions. :p
Fair enough. Perhaps I was also exaggerating a bit. But, like many, I believe, I am just at a loss to explain his massive and sudden improvement without including doping.

I am not discounting his mental attributes and his improvement through training, but that simply cannot be all. Otherwise we would see the first five to ten riders at the same level as Froome.
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
bigcog said:
lartiste said:


I assume, that we can put together explanation of what happened in two weeks prior Vuelta 2011. We all probably agree that this was the time of unbelievable transformation. Froome was desperate since he was hitting possibly end of carrier at World Tour level. He was done as well as his living in Monaco.

If I remember correctly, it was MacKenna in his article mentioning that EPO is giving 8% advantage. Nice example of donkey to race horse transformation is Riis, Mr. 60%. In his case I would say, that the advantage was even higher, 10% (really high hematocrit). So what Froome most probably needed was to increase his performance by 10% in two weeks. Others are unable to reach such goal in years, hat off for Froome.

My opinion:

1. DNP - only drug which helps to loose 5 kg in week (10 days), deadly, dangerous. Typical for desperate people.
2. Microdosing of EPO and HGH (peptides).
3. New miracle drug AICAR or GW501516 or similar undetectable drug.
4. Tramadol.
5. Microdosing of TST.

Still unbelievable, but other only explanation is motor.

Or combination of both :).


Correct me if I am wrong but they have had a test for AICAR and/or GW5016 for some years, so I doubt it is that. Tramadol, any studies showing it's PED potential ? I doubt it would have a major effect.[/quote]

We are speaking about 2011, I do not know from when both tests are available, but have doubts, that there were testing for AICAR in 2011.
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Benotti69 said:
bigcog said:
lartiste said:
Benotti69 said:
[quote="[quote="Benotti69":11wnmz2a]


Anyone who claims the clinic as a single entity is full of it.
Nowhere have I claimed the clinic is a single entity. The Clinic s great, and with a wide range of opinions. I have simply noted my disdain for 'clinic-bots' (I think we all know who they are). The kind of posters who fail to acknowledge any factor influencing a cyclist or bike race, other than doping.

It just ends up in circular conversations heavy in cherry-picked examples and innuendo, with no room for nuance or shades of grey.

In the case of Froome, no there is no grey. In 2 weeks the guy went from pack fodder to GT podium. There are no nuances attained in those 2 weeks. From there he has been GT podium or crash with 6 GT wins (4Tdf, 1 Giro and 1 Vuelta) I mean that stratospheric rise at 26 is not nuanced in any manner. This guy was going to out of a job then BOOM, he would've won a GT if not for Wiggins. CRAZY. Nuance where, just **** where??????
I assume, that we can put together explanation of what happened in two weeks prior Vuelta 2011. We all probably agree that this was the time of unbelievable transformation. Froome was desperate since he was hitting possibly end of carrier at World Tour level. He was done as well as his living in Monaco.

If I remember correctly, it was MacKenna in his article mentioning that EPO is giving 8% advantage. Nice example of donkey to race horse transformation is Riis, Mr. 60%. In his case I would say, that the advantage was even higher, 10% (really high hematocrit). So what Froome most probably needed was to increase his performance by 10% in two weeks. Others are unable to reach such goal in years, hat off for Froome.

My opinion:

1. DNP - only drug which helps to loose 5 kg in week (10 days), deadly, dangerous. Typical for desperate people.
2. Microdosing of EPO and HGH (peptides).
3. New miracle drug AICAR or GW501516 or similar undetectable drug.
4. Tramadol.
5. Microdosing of TST.

Still unbelievable, but other only explanation is motor.

Or combination of both :).
Correct me if I am wrong but they have had a test for AICAR and/or GW5016 for some years, so I doubt it is that. Tramadol, any studies showing it's PED potential ? I doubt it would have a major effect.[/quote]

Testing really works.

They have tests for some versions of EPO, there are over 80 types and the test covers a small amount of those.

Testing is at least 10 years behind, so what are they on now? New versions of AICAR or other stuff or maybe the UCI flushes their pee down the toilet and doesn't bother testing it. Who knows, transparency is zero.[/quote]

I would like to correct my initial thoughs:

1. Something for weight loss DNP, T3, T4, clen or salbutamol, but they are significantly weaker on the other hand clear out from the body very quickly.
2. Microdosing of EPO.
3. New miracle drug AICAR or GW501516 or similar undetectable drug.
4. Tramadol.
5. Microdosing of TST.
6. HGH (peptides), but this helps mostly in long run.

This is in my opinion the principle of combination. Would like to add, that based on experiences of users the enhancing drugs have in general biggest effect when used for the first time, so if CF was relatively clean prior summer 2011, then the effect would be really strong.

I am unsure how really works triamcinolon or other corticosteroids for weight loss and how strong they are. Also I assume, that CF was before Vuelta done also mentally. After he begins to deliver, I think he improved also mentally and it made him much stronger.

Concerning the testing I will try to start new thread since have few questions.
 
Re:

dacooley said:
you guys massively leave out a motivation factor. a guy with a goal of saving world tour registration and another guy aiming to win a regular grand tour think and work very very differently. so assuming that froome reaching all the heights is what he is 100% obliged to doping and nothing more, it doesn't explain how he manages to mantain this fantastic level for 8th consecutive season. for sure, Brownbobby is right, froome really won a lottery, genetic lottery, lottery of lucky circumstance or whatever. if that had been so easy, we would've witnessed dozens of transformations. however, froome stays one of a kind. ;)
The problem is that it hasn't been a permanent transformation, because what's often forgotten is that for the first half of 2012, he was back to the old Froome, allegedly he went back home and re-caught schistosomiasis. He had that great Vuelta, rode like a champion helper for Cav in the Worlds, and then disappeared; in the 2012 season he got his first CQ points just for finishing the Tour de Romandie, where he'd been first in the line because he was in awful form. He did a handful of races, and was either anonymous or conspicuously bad in all of them, then turned up for the Dauphiné as part of the Sky quartet of terror that just set a tempo and dropped everybody outright, only reaching some level of comeuppance when Quintana escaped on the Joux-Plane.

Now, since THEN, he hasn't looked back, and he's worked hard on certain weaknesses in his game to turn them into strengths since (descending, tactical riding - for example he couldn't outsprint one of the kids from the 200m Frankfurt drag race that Degenkolb's son did a couple of years ago at the start of the 2011 Vuelta, but now he's really smart about seeking out those bonus seconds when available, makes small moves ahead of those intermediates, and has a decent enough kick to get them). But we definitely overlook that really it's one and a half transformations, not just one, because in 2012 he went back to struggling, then turned back into the 2011 Vuelta Froome again. Less strange when he's been at that level before than when it originally happened, but still the difference between Romandie Froome and Dauphiné Froome was enormous, though at least he had a month to sort it out that time, rather than the two weeks between Poland and Spain in 2011.
 
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
eh...yes...'born' would suggest just that...that would suggest 26 years

and he wasn't hiding in the bush in Africa, he was hiding this potential as a full time bike rider and then on one of the top teams in Europe for at least 6 of those.

it's a funny kind of discussion where we now seem to be equating Froomes 'natural ability' not with cycling ability a la Hinault and Merkxck but for his responding to PEDs ability....like juggling, it's an ability but its apples and pears...

so yes...I'll grant you that he has perhaps unequaled ability to respond to PEDS...even more than Merxck and Hinault.........but that he had natural untapped cycling ability (without intervention i.e. 'natural')?...then no..he didn't...unless, again, you can show me that one performance pre-Vuelta where such an ability showed itself...just one?
 
I think the motivational factor is not being taken correctly. He most likely didn't work on his cycling deficiancies pre 2011 because he was simply no good. He had reached the end of his pro cycling career and needed to do something to turn around his fortunes. Drugs were most likely the answer.
Once he was able to elevate his game, due to chemicals, did he get more motivated and ambitious. He could train harder, recover better. Just like Lance. He had more money. He was now willing to improve tactical skills and whatever it might take to make him yet even faster. Motors. It's easy to do when one knows they are the best. And it's easy to come up with BS exlanations for everything even though he can't keep his stories straight. He still looks like *** on a bike, but it doesn't matter anymore.
His motivation was the new found success.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
dacooley said:
you guys massively leave out a motivation factor. a guy with a goal of saving world tour registration and another guy aiming to win a regular grand tour think and work very very differently. so assuming that froome reaching all the heights is what he is 100% obliged to doping and nothing more, it doesn't explain how he manages to mantain this fantastic level for 8th consecutive season. for sure, Brownbobby is right, froome really won a lottery, genetic lottery, lottery of lucky circumstance or whatever. if that had been so easy, we would've witnessed dozens of transformations. however, froome stays one of a kind. ;)
The problem is that it hasn't been a permanent transformation, because what's often forgotten is that for the first half of 2012, he was back to the old Froome, allegedly he went back home and re-caught schistosomiasis. He had that great Vuelta, rode like a champion helper for Cav in the Worlds, and then disappeared; in the 2012 season he got his first CQ points just for finishing the Tour de Romandie, where he'd been first in the line because he was in awful form. He did a handful of races, and was either anonymous or conspicuously bad in all of them, then turned up for the Dauphiné as part of the Sky quartet of terror that just set a tempo and dropped everybody outright, only reaching some level of comeuppance when Quintana escaped on the Joux-Plane.

Now, since THEN, he hasn't looked back, and he's worked hard on certain weaknesses in his game to turn them into strengths since (descending, tactical riding - for example he couldn't outsprint one of the kids from the 200m Frankfurt drag race that Degenkolb's son did a couple of years ago at the start of the 2011 Vuelta, but now he's really smart about seeking out those bonus seconds when available, makes small moves ahead of those intermediates, and has a decent enough kick to get them). But we definitely overlook that really it's one and a half transformations, not just one, because in 2012 he went back to struggling, then turned back into the 2011 Vuelta Froome again. Less strange when he's been at that level before than when it originally happened, but still the difference between Romandie Froome and Dauphiné Froome was enormous, though at least he had a month to sort it out that time, rather than the two weeks between Poland and Spain in 2011.
fully agreed. but from my perspective, the most considerable question should be arised like 'is the edge froome extracts from his top-end doping programme is really huge wrongful compared to others do?", NOWAYS like "does froome dope?' because he is doping to the eyeballs and I don't see it as a sin at all. Throughout the whole history of cycling the biggest champions most certainly always got an upper hand in a doping front as well. one cannot explain someone's prominent career by having a superior natural talent as there's necessarily a very compound mix of factors in the game. needless to say froome is the weirdest rider of all time starting from marvelous resurrection in the 2011 vuelta to yo-yoing racing manner and perfectly calculated efforts. but i don't see where he crosses the line of wrongdoing looking back at the past of the sports. he's just neither better nor worse than dopers from previous generations. prior 2011 he was obviously waay cleaner than elite grand tour riders back then, while what he managed to do later on is a very combination of full-scale doping schedule, working with innovative training methods, ruthlessness, will, determination, willingness to get increasingly stronger. but attributing the entire success to medicine... guys, have mercy.

gillan1969 said:
eh...yes...'born' would suggest just that...that would suggest 26 years

and he wasn't hiding in the bush in Africa, he was hiding this potential as a full time bike rider and then on one of the top teams in Europe for at least 6 of those.

it's a funny kind of discussion where we now seem to be equating Froomes 'natural ability' not with cycling ability a la Hinault and Merkxck but for his responding to PEDs ability....like juggling, it's an ability but its apples and pears...

so yes...I'll grant you that he has perhaps unequaled ability to respond to PEDS...even more than Merxck and Hinault.........but that he had natural untapped cycling ability (without intervention i.e. 'natural')?...then no..he didn't...unless, again, you can show me that one performance pre-Vuelta where such an ability showed itself...just one?
you are suggesting it as though any naturally gifted person finds his/her talent with 100% probability and there are no undiscovered talents.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
Libertine Seguros said:
dacooley said:
you guys massively leave out a motivation factor. a guy with a goal of saving world tour registration and another guy aiming to win a regular grand tour think and work very very differently. so assuming that froome reaching all the heights is what he is 100% obliged to doping and nothing more, it doesn't explain how he manages to mantain this fantastic level for 8th consecutive season. for sure, Brownbobby is right, froome really won a lottery, genetic lottery, lottery of lucky circumstance or whatever. if that had been so easy, we would've witnessed dozens of transformations. however, froome stays one of a kind. ;)
The problem is that it hasn't been a permanent transformation, because what's often forgotten is that for the first half of 2012, he was back to the old Froome, allegedly he went back home and re-caught schistosomiasis. He had that great Vuelta, rode like a champion helper for Cav in the Worlds, and then disappeared; in the 2012 season he got his first CQ points just for finishing the Tour de Romandie, where he'd been first in the line because he was in awful form. He did a handful of races, and was either anonymous or conspicuously bad in all of them, then turned up for the Dauphiné as part of the Sky quartet of terror that just set a tempo and dropped everybody outright, only reaching some level of comeuppance when Quintana escaped on the Joux-Plane.

Now, since THEN, he hasn't looked back, and he's worked hard on certain weaknesses in his game to turn them into strengths since (descending, tactical riding - for example he couldn't outsprint one of the kids from the 200m Frankfurt drag race that Degenkolb's son did a couple of years ago at the start of the 2011 Vuelta, but now he's really smart about seeking out those bonus seconds when available, makes small moves ahead of those intermediates, and has a decent enough kick to get them). But we definitely overlook that really it's one and a half transformations, not just one, because in 2012 he went back to struggling, then turned back into the 2011 Vuelta Froome again. Less strange when he's been at that level before than when it originally happened, but still the difference between Romandie Froome and Dauphiné Froome was enormous, though at least he had a month to sort it out that time, rather than the two weeks between Poland and Spain in 2011.
fully agreed. but from my perspective, the most considerable question should be arised like 'is the edge froome extracts from his top-end doping programme is really huge wrongful compared to others do?", NOWAYS like "does froome dope?' because he is doping to the eyeballs and I don't see it as a sin at all. Throughout the whole history of cycling the biggest champions most certainly always got an upper hand in a doping front as well. one cannot explain someone's prominent career by having a superior natural talent as there's necessarily a very compound mix of factors in the game. needless to say froome is the weirdest rider of all time starting from marvelous resurrection in the 2011 vuelta to yo-yoing racing manner and perfectly calculated efforts. but i don't see where he crosses the line of wrongdoing looking back at the past of the sports. he's just neither better nor worse than dopers from previous generations. prior 2011 he was obviously waay cleaner than elite grand tour riders back then, while what he managed to do later on is a very combination of full-scale doping schedule, working with innovative training methods, ruthlessness, will, determination, willingness to get increasingly stronger. but attributing the entire success to medicine... guys, have mercy.

gillan1969 said:
eh...yes...'born' would suggest just that...that would suggest 26 years

and he wasn't hiding in the bush in Africa, he was hiding this potential as a full time bike rider and then on one of the top teams in Europe for at least 6 of those.

it's a funny kind of discussion where we now seem to be equating Froomes 'natural ability' not with cycling ability a la Hinault and Merkxck but for his responding to PEDs ability....like juggling, it's an ability but its apples and pears...

so yes...I'll grant you that he has perhaps unequaled ability to respond to PEDS...even more than Merxck and Hinault.........but that he had natural untapped cycling ability (without intervention i.e. 'natural')?...then no..he didn't...unless, again, you can show me that one performance pre-Vuelta where such an ability showed itself...just one?
you are suggesting it as though any naturally gifted person finds his/her talent with 100% probability and there are no undiscovered talents.
plenty of undiscovered talent and plenty who never find theirs...

the stretch of the imagination is that you can hide the sort of ability Froome has in the pro peloton....where every day you turn the pedals you have the chance to demonstrate it...every time

flipping burgers in McDs?...perhaps not
accountant? perhaps not
p*sshead? perhaps not
40-a-day man? perhaps not
stonehead? perhaps not
pro-cyclist? eh...................yes
 
Sep 11, 2016
122
0
0
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
Libertine Seguros said:
dacooley said:
you guys massively leave out a motivation factor. a guy with a goal of saving world tour registration and another guy aiming to win a regular grand tour think and work very very differently. so assuming that froome reaching all the heights is what he is 100% obliged to doping and nothing more, it doesn't explain how he manages to mantain this fantastic level for 8th consecutive season. for sure, Brownbobby is right, froome really won a lottery, genetic lottery, lottery of lucky circumstance or whatever. if that had been so easy, we would've witnessed dozens of transformations. however, froome stays one of a kind. ;)
...
fully agreed. but from my perspective, the most considerable question should be arised like 'is the edge froome extracts from his top-end doping programme is really huge wrongful compared to others do?", NOWAYS like "does froome dope?' because he is doping to the eyeballs and I don't see it as a sin at all. Throughout the whole history of cycling the biggest champions most certainly always got an upper hand in a doping front as well. one cannot explain someone's prominent career by having a superior natural talent as there's necessarily a very compound mix of factors in the game. needless to say froome is the weirdest rider of all time starting from marvelous resurrection in the 2011 vuelta to yo-yoing racing manner and perfectly calculated efforts. but i don't see where he crosses the line of wrongdoing looking back at the past of the sports. he's just neither better nor worse than dopers from previous generations. prior 2011 he was obviously waay cleaner than elite grand tour riders back then, while what he managed to do later on is a very combination of full-scale doping schedule, working with innovative training methods, ruthlessness, will, determination, willingness to get increasingly stronger. but attributing the entire success to medicine... guys, have mercy.

gillan1969 said:
eh...yes...'born' would suggest just that...that would suggest 26 years

and he wasn't hiding in the bush in Africa, he was hiding this potential as a full time bike rider and then on one of the top teams in Europe for at least 6 of those.

it's a funny kind of discussion where we now seem to be equating Froomes 'natural ability' not with cycling ability a la Hinault and Merkxck but for his responding to PEDs ability....like juggling, it's an ability but its apples and pears...

so yes...I'll grant you that he has perhaps unequaled ability to respond to PEDS...even more than Merxck and Hinault.........but that he had natural untapped cycling ability (without intervention i.e. 'natural')?...then no..he didn't...unless, again, you can show me that one performance pre-Vuelta where such an ability showed itself...just one?
you are suggesting it as though any naturally gifted person finds his/her talent with 100% probability and there are no undiscovered talents.
It is not that Froome is doping is more wrong than anybody else is doping.

It is more whether you are able to support/cheer for Froome and Sky or not. I can fully understand brits cheering for Sky from a national point of view (or any other point of view for that matter) or fans from other countries for that matter.

Unfortunately, I find myself unable to support them, and in that case it is exhausting to see yet another more or less inexplicably dominant team and captain winning Grand Tours for fun. Couple that with their professed innocense, better training, PR nonsense, changing stories and similarity with US Postal or Banesto. On top of that add their seemingly indifference to trying to make their efforts believable and you get the reason why some people are just fed up with it. Myself included.

From my point of view they are simply strangling all Grand Tours they enter, cancelling all exiting racing. And that is hard to watch when they want you to believe that it is down to beetroot juice, pillows and getting rid of exotic deceases.

And I know this has been said before :)
 
gillan1969 said:
brownbobby said:
gillan1969 said:
Brownbobby...."born to the be the best"? One, just one, performance pre-Vuelta 2011 where this gift from birth made itself evident? just one?
I’ve never once said he demonstrated any kind of potential to be the best pre 2011. Have I?

As I said earlier, there are countless reasons why potential can stay hidden.

My point, which I stand by, is that he is now the best, thus had the genetics to be the best.

What I/we don’t know is what happened to suddenly switch on those genetics. Maybe it was a genetic predisposition to be a super responder to doping, if that fits with your narrative neatly?

It’s still genetics.
eh...yes...'born' would suggest just that...that would suggest 26 years

and he wasn't hiding in the bush in Africa, he was hiding this potential as a full time bike rider and then on one of the top teams in Europe for at least 6 of those.

it's a funny kind of discussion where we now seem to be equating Froomes 'natural ability' not with cycling ability a la Hinault and Merkxck but for his responding to PEDs ability....like juggling, it's an ability but its apples and pears...

so yes...I'll grant you that he has perhaps unequaled ability to respond to PEDS...even more than Merxck and Hinault.........but that he had natural untapped cycling ability (without intervention i.e. 'natural')?...then no..he didn't...unless, again, you can show me that one performance pre-Vuelta where such an ability showed itself...just one?
Why don’t you ask me a question about something I actually said, rather than your own reimagined version of what I said. I might be able to attempt to answer then....
 
Re:

veganrob said:
I think the motivational factor is not being taken correctly. He most likely didn't work on his cycling deficiancies pre 2011 because he was simply no good. He had reached the end of his pro cycling career and needed to do something to turn around his fortunes. Drugs were most likely the answer.
Once he was able to elevate his game, due to chemicals, did he get more motivated and ambitious. He could train harder, recover better. Just like Lance. He had more money. He was now willing to improve tactical skills and whatever it might take to make him yet even faster. Motors. It's easy to do when one knows they are the best. And it's easy to come up with BS exlanations for everything even though he can't keep his stories straight. He still looks like **** on a bike, but it doesn't matter anymore.
His motivation was the new found success.
Agreed. And it seems like it would be easier to find great motivation when one is at a physiological level way above everyone else. Look at all of Froome's TDF wins. Whatever the final time gaps, none of these has been a close race. Froome could have put more minutes into everyone if he wanted. Fresh as a daisy. Froome's program is not like anyone else's -- either he has gotten hold of better stuff or is a better physiological responder. The outcome is a non-level playing field, where Froome enjoys a huge physical/metabolic advantage over all other competitors. In these situations, his character is never put to the test, because he doesn't have to invest the same pain/suffering that other GC guys would, in the same situation. That's the thing -- it's easy to be motivated when it's easy to win. This is not a level playing field, whether the rest of the peloton is doped or not.
 
How do you know he finished fresh as a daisy? How do you know he could have put more time into other riders? How do you know his character isnt tested? How do you know he suffers less than other riders would in the same situation?
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Valv.Piti said:
I very much agree with Rasmussen that his raid was plausible and within the limits. Had nothing to do with Landis or whatever - I argued that just after what he did after the half the forum moaned that it isn't natural, it was Landis esque etc.

Well, it might very well not be natural, but to go back to Rasmussen, it definitely didn't show that he is on some hardcore stuff the rest of the field isn't. Its pretty even.
Quite by coincidence, since Rasmussen's interview, the whole debate has moved on from that ride. It's now back to past and all the dots that beg to be joined. Funny how thst happened.
Yes, the shocking revelation that in the “Froome Talk Only” thread people talk about all things Froome :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY