Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 124 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
SeriousSam said:
what is it about probability airstream just doesn't get? like, if Aston Villa wins the English premier league next season and people comment on how incredibly unlikely that was, would airstream go:

"huh? the future is unpredictable! there was no reason to believe they wouldn't beat manchester united, man city and chelsea!"
Yes, it would be fair and deserved for me. I'm fan and my goal is to consume the sport and enjoy it. Dividing the things on normal and not normal is beyond me because I'm not a cycling specialist. I don't know how training plans are created, how the riders are tested physically etc etc. I'm just a humble consumer
 
Jun 27, 2013
16
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Imagine if, at the end of the 2011 Tour, on Cadel Evans' victory parade, somebody told you Chris Froome would be the favourite to win the 2013 Tour.

You'd have had second thoughts about the cheese and mushroom baguette you just ate.
But as BMC have not moved on and selected their 2011 team, is it any surprise the Froome is the favourite.

It is definitley going to be 3 long boring weeks.

How did cycling get itself into this situation? Living in the past and not moving with the times -the current format harks back to by gone eras.
 
manafana said:
So guys might be micro doping now, but what hard evidence do we have that sky are doping bar really good performances, they did have dodgy doctor working with them for while but hes gone now.

least with lance their was mud that would stick.
None. But then, there never is any evidence until there is, so there's still hope for the anti-Froomists here. ;)
 
karrotten said:
But as BMC have not moved on and selected their 2011 team, is it any surprise the Froome is the favourite.

It is definitley going to be 3 long boring weeks.

How did cycling get itself into this situation? Living in the past and not moving with the times -the current format harks back to by gone eras.
To somebody posting in July 2011, yes, it is a surprise, and an enormous one, that Froome is the favourite. They may say BMC selecting the 2011 team again is not moving with the times and Evans at 36 is likely past it, but in July 2011, there were a lot of cyclists showing talent - and prospective talent - of a level between that of Evans and of Froome.

How's about:
Jürgen van den Broeck
Joaquím Rodríguez
Sergio Henao (yes, back in 2011, as he was still a big prospect)
Andy Schleck
Fränk Schleck
Tejay van Garderen
Vincenzo Nibali
Roman Kreuziger
Christophe Le Mevel (!)
Domenico Pozzovivo
Bradley Wiggins
Thomas Löfkvist (!!)
Thibaut Pinot
Igor Antón
Mikel Nieve
Rigoberto Urán
Bauke Mollema
Steven Kruijswijk
Carlos Betancur
Pierre Rolland
Denis Menchov (!!!)
Ryder Hesjedal
Dan Martin
Rein Taaramäe
Valerio Agnoli
Jakob Fuglsang
Janez Brajkovic
Robert Gesink
Jérôme Coppel
Arnold Jeannesson
Haimar Zubeldia
Andreas Klöden (2013 is an odd number year)
Damiano Cunego
Diego Ulissi
Maxime Monfort
Carlos Barredo
José Rujano
John Gadret (!!!!)
Michele Scarponi
Dario Cataldo
Bart de Clercq
Rubén Plaza
Francis de Greef
Tiago Machado
Jan Bakelants
Daniel Moreno
Jean-Christophe Peraud
Christophe Kern
Chris Anker Sørensen
Kanstantsin Siutsou
Michael Rogers
Nicolas Roche
Thomas de Gendt
Sergey Lagutin
Mathias Fränk
Leopold König

but I guess if something happened to all of them, Chris Froome could have joined the list of contenders.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Your girls have been rollerskiing up the Passo Torre di Fraele, which is pretty cool, but they're having to do it repeatedly to match up to the French girls, who were rollerskiing up the Gavia.
Am I missing something in translation here, LS?
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
that basically.

Seriously hektoren you say your wife has tits:eek: I find that hard to believe when she's so severely underweight. I shudder to think what your wife looks like (I'm sure she's very pretty but that weight - damn). A friend of mine is 160cm and 45 kg. She's super skinny and actually underweight. And your wife is 12 cm taller and 3kg lighter :eek:

I almost feel like a fatty now, more or less same height as your wife but 25 kg heavier:eek::D
The point is, she isn't underweight. If you're underweight you're prone to get sick a lot. She's in perfect health and hasn't been sick for more than a three-day stint with flu in the last 25-year period. She's just lithe, slender, long-limbed and full of life. You'd easily fall in love with her intense presence. She's full of energy and never idle. Her motto could very well have been "I'll get all the rest I could possibly want when you bury me".
She's the spitting image of her paternal grandmother who lived till the ripe age of 98, so it's not very likely that I'll see her off.
Point is, our biological potential is very varied. That's part and parcel of why homo sapiens is so adaptible to different environments. Preconceived normative notions of "what people should look like" is just wrong.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
SeriousSam said:
As opposed to Porte who looks like he half assed the training. Will most likely collapse during the first stage because he hasn't gone through all the machinations!

The good old "those are ELITE ATHLETES and you're a fat coach potato. You don't know anything about HARD WORK!" argument sure is convincing. :rolleyes:
Again, if you haven't got first-hand experience with elite athletes, you're probably not the right person to judge the athlete by looks only.
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
SeriousSam said:
As opposed to Porte who looks like he half assed the training. Will most likely collapse during the first stage because he hasn't gone through all the machinations!

The good old "those are ELITE ATHLETES and you're a fat coach potato. You don't know anything about HARD WORK!" argument sure is convincing. :rolleyes:
Yeah, Porte looks absolutely "portly" next to Mr. Emaciated. The guy is not at a healthy weight ... I have a suspicion that Wiggins' own propensity for low fat likely caused him sickness in the Giro. When bodyfat is that low problems arise. And exactly how much weight can a rider lose and keep power, let alone increase it substantially?
 
hektoren said:
The point is, she isn't underweight. If you're underweight you're prone to get sick a lot. She's in perfect health and hasn't been sick for more than a three-day stint with flu in the last 25-year period. She's just lithe, slender, long-limbed and full of life. You'd easily fall in love with her intense presence. She's full of energy and never idle. Her motto could very well have been "I'll get all the rest I could possibly want when you bury me".
She's the spitting image of her paternal grandmother who lived till the ripe age of 98, so it's not very likely that I'll see her off.
Point is, our biological potential is very varied. That's part and parcel of why homo sapiens is so adaptible to different environments. Preconceived normative notions of "what people should look like" is just wrong.
It sounds like Ms Hektoren has always been on the thin side, whereas the Dawg has gone through a transformation the past few years to his skeletal state thus the concern in the clinic.

I am tall and thin myself (188cm, 70kg) and if I was a GT contender I would probably be accused of doping for this reason. I have always been thin though and therefore it could be considered to be my natural morphology.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
frenchfry said:
It sounds like Ms Hektoren has always been on the thin side, whereas the Dawg has gone through a transformation the past few years to his skeletal state thus the concern in the clinic.

I am tall and thin myself (188cm, 70kg) and if I was a GT contender I would probably be accused of doping for this reason. I have always been thin though and therefore it could be considered to be my natural morphology.
Mrs. Hektoren, if you please.
I used to have what my mom referred to as "puppy fat", but working a lot, training a lot, avoiding excessive alcohol-consumption and food resulted in a 187, 72kg guy. Froome's 186 and 68 kg isn't that extreme. He's half my age, and ready for extreme performance to an order I've never been. His food and training regimen has obviously been designed with shedding excess subcutaneous fat in mind, and is utterly believable. I just don't care what anybody says about the way he looks. His "look" is definitely not an indication of doping or unhealthy manipulation of any kind. You may continue to harp on this theme endlessly, and if he's caught doping and you get that "what did I say"-moment, I want you to know that the way he looks today is no indication whatsoever.
 
hektoren said:
The point is, she isn't underweight. If you're underweight you're prone to get sick a lot. She's in perfect health and hasn't been sick for more than a three-day stint with flu in the last 25-year period. She's just lithe, slender, long-limbed and full of life. You'd easily fall in love with her intense presence. She's full of energy and never idle. Her motto could very well have been "I'll get all the rest I could possibly want when you bury me".
She's the spitting image of her paternal grandmother who lived till the ripe age of 98, so it's not very likely that I'll see her off.
Point is, our biological potential is very varied. That's part and parcel of why homo sapiens is so adaptible to different environments. Preconceived normative notions of "what people should look like" is just wrong.
I like to see it this way. BMI of 18.5 to 25 is healthy. I, at 170cm and 67kg, have a BMI of 23.2. My friend, 160cm and 45kg, has a BMI of 17.6, so underweight.

Your wife has a BMI of 14.2. She may be healthy, but is definitely underweight.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
I like to see it this way. BMI of 18.5 to 25 is healthy. I, at 170cm and 67kg, have a BMI of 23.2. My friend, 160cm and 45kg, has a BMI of 17.6, so underweight.

Your wife has a BMI of 14.2. She may be healthy, but is definitely underweight.
You forget that BMI is a Body Mass Index. An Index, which might give you an INDICATION, but definitely isn't chapter and verse of lives lived. Get a grip: My wife isn't underweight. She's slimmer than most, granted, she doesn't fit the standard, granted, but she's just perfect for her biological potential. Never sick, bred three perfectly healthy kids, performs in her job at a steady 150% of what's expected (intensive care nurse), has time for her friends 24/7/365 in times of need, is vivacious, graceful and delicious. Who are you to call her "underweight"? By amassing weight alone, you deem that she'd be better in which way, exactly? I told you that she runs marathons, and is really good at it. Do you really expect marathon runners to have a BMI that's "normall" according to you?
What is normal about cycling the TdF for three weeks, BTW? Do you really expect the peloton to fit the average BMI? Buck off! You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
 
hektoren said:
You forget that BMI is a Body Mass Index. An Index, which might give you an INDICATION, but definitely isn't chapter and verse of lives lived. Get a grip: My wife isn't underweight. She's slimmer than most, granted, she doesn't fit the standard, granted, but she's just perfect for her biological potential. Never sick, bred three perfectly healthy kids, performs in her job at a steady 150% of what's expected (intensive care nurse), has time for her friends 24/7/365 in times of need, is vivacious, graceful and delicious. Who are you to call her "underweight"? By amassing weight alone, you deem that she'd be better in which way, exactly? I told you that she runs marathons, and is really good at it. Do you really expect marathon runners to have a BMI that's "normall" according to you?
What is normal about cycling the TdF for three weeks, BTW? Do you really expect the peloton to fit the average BMI? Buck off! You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Dude calm down. She is underweight. That doesn't mean she's not healthy, that doesn't mean she's about to die, just that she's too light for her height. In her case, she's probably among the 1% that doesn't get health issues at a very low weight. Froome however, because he looked perfectly normal a few year ago, probably isn't.

And yes I expect a marathon runner to have a normal bmi. My dad runs marathons. A friend of mine runs marathons. They're at a normal weight.

As is the majority of the peloton. Including Froome. It's just his transformation that's so remarkable.

So yea I do know what I'm talking about.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
Dude calm down. She is underweight. That doesn't mean she's not healthy, that doesn't mean she's about to die, just that she's too light for her height. In her case, she's probably among the 1% that doesn't get health issues at a very low weight. Froome however, because he looked perfectly normal a few year ago, probably isn't.

And yes I expect a marathon runner to have a normal bmi. My dad runs marathons. A friend of mine runs marathons. They're at a normal weight.

As is the majority of the peloton. Including Froome. It's just his transformation that's so remarkable.

So yea I do know what I'm talking about.
No, you just don't grasp the concept of the BMI. Low weight, check. UNDERWEIGHT, uncheck. Underweight means she should bulk up to fit a criterium you have decided is the optimum.
Paula Radcliffe was 173 and 54 kg. Rosa Mota was 1.57, 45kg, you can check the BMI of elite marathon runners, and among the top 10 for women, BMI is between 16.6 and 18.2. My wife is at 14.2, which is less, granted, but it's what a normal, full life with a busy schedule has left her at. You might call it underweight, but it's normal FOR HER. Underweight means a lot of trouble. She ain't got them. And for the breast-fixated clinic-dwellers inquiring about her breasts, they're a healthy pair of 38C according to my wife. I'd have guessed 38E(longated) but that's another story altogether.
 
hektoren said:
No, you just don't grasp the concept of the BMI. Low weight, check. UNDERWEIGHT, uncheck. Underweight means she should bulk up to fit a criterium you have decided is the optimum.
Paula Radcliffe was 173 and 54 kg. Rosa Mota was 1.57, 45kg, you can check the BMI of elite marathon runners, and among the top 10 for women, BMI is between 16.6 and 18.2. My wife is at 14.2, which is less, granted, but it's what a normal, full life with a busy schedule has left her at. You might call it underweight, but it's normal FOR HER. Underweight means a lot of trouble. She ain't got them. And for the breast-fixated clinic-dwellers inquiring about her breasts, they're a healthy pair of 38C according to my wife. I'd have guessed 38E(longated) but that's another story altogether.
Maybe you should enter her in the Tour so she can put the smack down on Froome. You'll be so busy watching that you won't have time to bore us with tales of your wife's boob size.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY