Possiably, but he Velon numbers got lost and we only saw a small cut of them from Stage 19. Which numbers are you referring to as “realistic”?DFA123 said:Rasmussen is spot on. Froome's performance simply wasn't that suspicious. Of course Froome and Sky are suspicious in general, but there is an important distinction to be made to avoid muddying the waters. Froome did nothing extra-ordinary at the Giro: trying to twist his numbers or imply he had a motor or impossible recovery is not being objective. The numbers he put out are very realistic and he was never *that* bad at any point in the race.fmk_RoI said:Michael Rasmussen's been Tweeting about this over the last few days, now he's been interviewed:“I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag,” Rasmussen told Cyclingnews.
“All the difference was made in one day, and under very extreme circumstances. You had the four-time Tour champion, on one of the hardest climbs in Europe, against riders who had nowhere near the same palmares as him, with weaker teams.”
“I know that people will be surprised with my views on this. I’m very critical towards Team Sky and their mismanagement of their own ethical rules. Trust for them has gone but if you look at the performance of just Froome, it was credible in the sense that I don’t think he cheated any of his rivals. That’s not saying that they’re all doing something but no one can convince me that Froome is riding with an engine in his bike or that he’s on kryptonite. Otherwise you’d not put yourself in a position where you’re over three minutes behind on the 19th stage. Then you’d be leading by five minutes at that point. Winning the Giro by 46 seconds is not something that you can easily calculate after racing for over 3,000 kilometres.”
Some of the clinic bots in this thread seem to have developed a pavlovian response to Froome - that everything he does must be spun to be ridiculous and unbelievable. Which is a shame, because it waters down the much stronger arguments to be made against Sky.