Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1240 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
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.”
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.

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.
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”? :cool:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
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”? :cool:
Your implication here being what? Rasmussen is abundantly clear of his opinion:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
DFA123 said:
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.
This is how i feel, i don't particularly beleive in Froome per se, but the clinic crazies, full on, tin hat, wrapping foil around the TV, conspiracy theories make me inclined to defend him sometimes.
Amen to every word of that :cool:
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
thehog said:
bigcog said:
samhocking said:
So why did Froome wait 16 days to make his move on GC and shed time on 3 mountains. I honestly think it's more like Rasmussen says. Froome is in a different class to Dumoulin, Yates, Pinot, Pozzovivi. I think the crash was worse than Sky would obviously let on. It took two weeks for the tissue to repair and body to allow its resources to all go to performance instead of repairing itself and Froome was simply the only mutliple GT winner there. He's won more GTs than the entire Giro Peloton combined for example. I think therefore Rasmussen has it about right. It was a normal Froome performance exaggerated by poor quality field and the crash. I would add the crash simply distorted what wasn't a comeback at all to looking like it, it was simply him returning to normal, whatever normal is.
A case of shoot the messenger if not on message as usual ;)
No as Rasmussen is saying it’s a sum of parts put together which is likely that Froome (and his counterparts) are doping. Froome is likely to be banned from the sport soon for doping. Add that with the Giro performance and your flag is very very red.
That's not how I read it as that's not what he said. "I don’t see his performance at the Giro as a red flag" and " 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".

Might be a translation issue as his line doesn't make complete sense in English. I read it that he was not suspect of Froomes performance and he was not saying other riders were doing something either or Froome had an engine or on kryptonite. If he said 'That's not to say they're all not doing something" I would totally agree with you.
For me the biggest flag for Froome in the Giro was not Stage 19's performance per se. It was that he recovered/improved from his crash on day 1. Recovering from crashes and gaining form (so to speak) once you are on the back foot, in a GT where "every day is a classic" (i.e. hard), is extremely unlikely. If there are two things I find completely unbelievable with Froome, it is his initial transformation back in 2011 (which, yes, sets his baseline as a GT contender), and his 'ability' to recover. The latter is very much related to Sky and their track record of questionable ethics to provide medicines (TUE required or not) for performance gain.

It's not like I think the guy has an engine or is taking a secret form of EPO. I do wonder what drugs he istaking and how far Sky (or may be just Froome) goes with medication use to achieve results.
 
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
DFA123 said:
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.
This is how i feel, i don't particularly beleive in Froome per se, but the clinic crazies, full on, tin hat, wrapping foil around the TV, conspiracy theories make me inclined to defend him sometimes.
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.

Feel free to defend but history shows us that when great performances occur, doping is always in the equation.
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Singer01 said:
DFA123 said:
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.
This is how i feel, i don't particularly beleive in Froome per se, but the clinic crazies, full on, tin hat, wrapping foil around the TV, conspiracy theories make me inclined to defend him sometimes.
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.

Feel free to defend but history shows us that when great performances occur, doping is always in the equation.
Why are you pretending that you don't understand what DFA123 and Singer01 are saying? Actullay, no need to answer ;)
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Singer01 said:
DFA123 said:
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.
This is how i feel, i don't particularly beleive in Froome per se, but the clinic crazies, full on, tin hat, wrapping foil around the TV, conspiracy theories make me inclined to defend him sometimes.
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.

Feel free to defend but history shows us that when great performances occur, doping is always in the equation.
That's almost the complete opposite of what was said though, isn't it :confused:
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.
Which statistics are we using here? Winners who have been stripped of victories? That's well below 99.99999999%. Winners who have been caught doping at some stage in their career or admitted to having doped at some stage in their career? Still well below 99.99999999%. Winners who are thought to be doping because, well, come on, everyone knows, you can't win clean, everyone dopes? Why are we tarting this belief up with statistics? It's an act of faith. It doesn't need magic maths.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.
Which statistics are we using here? Winners who have been stripped of victories? That's well below 99.99999999%. Winners who have been caught doping at some stage in their career or admitted to having doped at some stage in their career? Still well below 99.99999999%. Winners who are thought to be doping because, well, come on, everyone knows, you can't win clean, everyone dopes? Why are we tarting this belief up with statistics? It's an act of faith. It doesn't need magic maths.
Let’s not be silly here FMK. You well know the doping issues in GTs, in particular with those who win GTs. To suggest it’s a conspiracy theory to assume a rider might be using drugs is the magic math. Time to move on from this simple fact.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Do teams usually reveal their TdF kits so early, or is Sky just trying to get some good publicity so ASO doesn't try to keep Froome out? Got to make sure people don't talk too much about Sky's shady dealings?



Froome-the-rabbit-killer is now going to get on Murdoch's yacht and save the whales!
It's not right that people like thehog try to badmouth this leading philanthropist and stop his important work. :D
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
DFA123 said:
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.”
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.

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.
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”? :cool:
Lot's of riders who were using Velon lost data/numbers on that stage so there is perhaps a more straightforward reason.
 
Re:

Beech Mtn said:
Do teams usually reveal their TdF kits so early, or is Sky just trying to get some good publicity so ASO doesn't try to keep Froome out? Got to make sure people don't talk too much about Sky's shady dealings?

[quote="Beech Mtn"]Do teams usually reveal their TdF kits so early, or is Sky just trying to get some good publicity so ASO doesn't try to keep Froome out? Got to make sure people don't talk too much about Sky's shady dealings?



Froome-the-rabbit-killer is now going to get on Murdoch's yacht and save the whales!
It's not right that people like thehog try to badmouth this leading philanthropist and stop his important work. :D
Did someone mention conspiracy theories earlier? :lol:

Seriously, this is just priceless....For a long time Sky have been attaching themselves to some very worthwhile causes on a similar theme to this one, but we should have known it's all part of the great doping cover up.

I said earlier in the week, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Sky can do or say that someone in here isn't able to somehow use against them to prove they're doping.

It's just beautiful to observe at times :lol:
 
May 21, 2015
72
0
0
I'm not too up nor down with Sky at the Giro though I did admittedly have a chuckle at times, the whole ongoing drama with them is draining. Speaking only for me I find them as hypocritical and successful as they are controversial, it's all about them regardless and for me it's wearing thin no matter what the topic or argument on any specific day.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
thehog said:
DFA123 said:
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.”
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.

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.
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”? :cool:
Lot's of riders who were using Velon lost data/numbers on that stage so there is perhaps a more straightforward reason.
True. I was more asking for the “realistic numbers” that were quoted. What were these numbers?
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.
Which statistics are we using here? Winners who have been stripped of victories? That's well below 99.99999999%. Winners who have been caught doping at some stage in their career or admitted to having doped at some stage in their career? Still well below 99.99999999%. Winners who are thought to be doping because, well, come on, everyone knows, you can't win clean, everyone dopes? Why are we tarting this belief up with statistics? It's an act of faith. It doesn't need magic maths.
Let’s not be silly here FMK. You well know the doping issues in GTs, in particular with those who win GTs. To suggest it’s a conspiracy theory to assume a rider might be using drugs is the magic math. Time to move on from this simple fact.
I asked you why you're tarting up an act of faith with spurious statistics. You're seeing conspiracy theories instead of showing the workings behind your magical 99.9999%. Don't you want people to know know much reality has to be contorted to get that number?
 
Sep 21, 2013
67
0
0
thehog said:
https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/ewan-mackenna-so-how-is-it-then-that-you-explain-a-freak-like-chris-froome-36968940.html#click=https://t.co/l7cFyskub0

If you get a chance read this article from Ewen McKenna on the Froome timeline of inconsistency in his statements.
Thanks, Hog. That’s a very good read.
 
Ewan Mckenna writes well informed articles but this story has two mistakes - Landis was busted for testerone and Mckenna loses the thread of his argument when the last part of the story refers to motors.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
fmk_RoI said:
thehog said:
GT winner might be doping and you see that as a conspiracy theory? If you went on statistics only based on the last 30 years of cycling, the likihood of a GT winner doping is close to 99.99999999%.
Which statistics are we using here? Winners who have been stripped of victories? That's well below 99.99999999%. Winners who have been caught doping at some stage in their career or admitted to having doped at some stage in their career? Still well below 99.99999999%. Winners who are thought to be doping because, well, come on, everyone knows, you can't win clean, everyone dopes? Why are we tarting this belief up with statistics? It's an act of faith. It doesn't need magic maths.
Let’s not be silly here FMK. You well know the doping issues in GTs, in particular with those who win GTs. To suggest it’s a conspiracy theory to assume a rider might be using drugs is the magic math. Time to move on from this simple fact.
I asked you why you're tarting up an act of faith with spurious statistics. You're seeing conspiracy theories instead of showing the workings behind your magical 99.9999%. Don't you want people to know know much reality has to be contorted to get that number?
All GT winners in the modern era have asterixes beside them. Due to failing tests, working with doping doctors, riding on dirty teams etc etc......

There is also common sense, how does one cleanly beat dopers over 3 weeks of intense racing? You cannot.
 
Re:

yaco said:
Ewan Mckenna writes well informed articles but this story has two mistakes - Landis was busted for testerone and Mckenna loses the thread of his argument when the last part of the story refers to motors.
But didn't Landis admit to EPO and HGH, but always to this day deny using testosterone at the time of the failed test? You have to wonder why he'd lie about this still with all the water now under the bridge.

Agree on the motors bit though...as soon as I see 'Varjas' mentioned I know I'm starting to read works of fiction
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
yaco said:
Ewan Mckenna writes well informed articles but this story has two mistakes - Landis was busted for testerone and Mckenna loses the thread of his argument when the last part of the story refers to motors.
But didn't Landis admit to EPO and HGH, but always to this day deny using testosterone at the time of the failed test? You have to wonder why he'd lie about this still with all the water now under the bridge.

Agree on the motors bit though...as soon as I see 'Varjas' mentioned I know I'm starting to read works of fiction
Time will tell.

As Ewan and others have pointed out. Froome's cadence on climbs doesn't match that in his TTs and the flat.

Something does not add up and a motor is the obvious explaination.

I would imagine, if, motors are in use (Femke was caught so they were in use) and i have no reason to doubt that, since UCI testing for them has been as big a joke as them testing for PEDs everything points to motors in use, which explain to me some weird performances, Froome, Roglic and others.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS