Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Angliru]

Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

So the "measured" responses only came from those that didn't question the validity of his stage 19 attack?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

 

[The Hegelian]

any explanations why froome won the giro are somehow or other are caused by doping. long ago, all debates reached the line where froome can do nothing normally.even the 2017 tour, taken quite marginally with a minimal advantage wasn't the way it's gotta be. any result from froome, whatever he finishes 1st, 10th or 100th can be explained by doping alone.

So it seems And I kind of understand it, because he is the lightning rod for this generation - the Armstrong of the 2010s. And he had the infamous 2011 transformation, and Sky are such a shifty team in general. But I feel that when other possibilities are immediately dismissed out of hand, despite having some legitimacy, then it stops being a debate and becomes a witchunt. Hegel would not approve.

Hegel would consider the way that historical forces have unfolded dialectically to produce these understandings - in this sense, I think he probably would approve. Almost all of the biggest skeptics about Froome have deep knowledge of cycling history, and a keen sense in which the present is strongly shaped by it. Many of those who aren't skeptical are basically British fans who got into cycling when Wiggins won the tdf - and they often produce a-historical arguments in support of this new clean era.

To speak personally about the matter, I did not think that Froome did anything suss in the '17 tdf. In the Vuelta, his rebound was a bit eyebrow raising - and it since emerged that he got popped at that exact point. And his giro resurrection was truly eyebrow raising. Therefore, no witchhunt, merely calling it as I see it.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

 

[Merckx index]

This article is more than a year old, so maybe it’s been posted here before, but an interesting attempt to compare Froome’s meteoric rise to success with other riders who won their first GT rather suddenly:

It is this transformation [in the 2011 Vuelta] that sceptics use as as a stick to beat Froome with. This performance came from nowhere. He had shown no signs of being able to race like this before – in any race, let alone a Grand Tour. Cyclists weren’t supposed to be able to do this. They’re either supposed to be world beaters from an early age like Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault or they’re supposed to gradually improve year by year until they finally crack the big time, like Miguel Indurain and Carlos Sastre.

I‘ve number crunched the last 30 years worth of Grand Tours to find out if there are any riders who have done something similar. The following table shows eight riders who suddenly finished on the podium of a Grand Tour having never before finished in the top 40. It shows each of these riders best previous result in each of the three Grand Tours and their average finishing position across all three before they made it on to the podium.

Of the eight riders in the table above, only one went on to win a Grand Tour after their inaugural breakthrough performance – Fabio Aru at the 2015 Vuelta…

Increasing the scope from those who had never before finished in the top 40 of a Grand Tour to those who had never before finished in the top 30 gives us six new riders in the list – Froome, Isidro Nozal, Nairo Quintana, Damiano Cunego, Peter Velits and Alberto Contador.

It’s interesting to see both Contador and Quintana appear on the list now…obviously all three also went on to win multiple Grand Tours after their initial breakthrough performances. Again there’s perhaps a fact which sets Froome apart from the others on the list which is the number of Grand Tours he had ridden before his first podium – and a related fact, his age.

So let’s alter the table a bit to include these two pieces of information and instead of ordering it by average finishing position, let’s order it by the number of prior Grand Tours each rider had taken part in.

Froome is third in the list having previously taken part in three Grand Tours before the 2011 Vuelta (including a disqualification from the 2010 Giro for holding on to a race vehicle). He’s also the second oldest after one hit wonder Santiago Perez. The reigning Tour champion was also almost two years older than Contador and three years older than Quintana both of whom had only ridden one previous Grand Tour as opposed to Froome’s three.

Before the 2011 Vuelta, Froome had won nothing which meant he was there very much to ride in the service of team leader Bradley Wiggins. But did Froome not win races because he wasn’t trusted with leadership of a team or was he not trusted with leadership because he didn’t win races? This is a question that a spreadsheet or a set of statistics cannot answer.

Froome did come from nothing to finish on the podium of the 2011 Vuelta. He wasn’t the first to do something like this, he won’t be the last. But given his age, the number of Grand Tours he had already ridden and the phenomenal sustained success he has achieved since then sets him apart from others.

But is this enough to cause the scepticism and from some quarters, downright accusations, which Froome has had to endure over the last five years? As usual with all things related to Froome, or indeed Team Sky, everyone probably has their mind made up by now and no amount of numbers and tables are going to change that.

http://www.irishpeloton.com/2017/02/froomes-emergence-from-the-shadows/

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

So the "measured" responses only came from those that didn't question the validity of his stage 19 attack?

Yes...in so far as they came a few days later, and after the initial hysteria had died down.

When somebody like Rasmussen says "Hang on a minute" it's probably worth a listen. When somebody like TSP, who had previously said Froome shouldnt ride, suggests Froome's attack wasnt mutant, he's worth considering.

None of them were claiming Froome is a clean rider. They were just claiming that the breakaway wasn't as outrageously implausible as had been made out.

 

[dacooley]

when all your being moans and yells seeing froome hammering the whole field like juniors after attacking from 80 km to go, it's getting tough to stay calm and not show signs of hysteria. his transformation is so unique that time in no ways heals anything. frome has been a world beater for about 5 years, while we are tend to be boiling over as though he keeps staying that rookie guy who tied himself in a knot on santuario di san luca and was shamefully dq'ed from 2010 giro.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

This article is more than a year old, so maybe it’s been posted here before, but an interesting attempt to compare Froome’s meteoric rise to success with other riders who won their first GT rather suddenly:

It is this transformation [in the 2011 Vuelta] that sceptics use as as a stick to beat Froome with. This performance came from nowhere. He had shown no signs of being able to race like this before – in any race, let alone a Grand Tour. Cyclists weren’t supposed to be able to do this. They’re either supposed to be world beaters from an early age like Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault or they’re supposed to gradually improve year by year until they finally crack the big time, like Miguel Indurain and Carlos Sastre.

I‘ve number crunched the last 30 years worth of Grand Tours to find out if there are any riders who have done something similar. The following table shows eight riders who suddenly finished on the podium of a Grand Tour having never before finished in the top 40. It shows each of these riders best previous result in each of the three Grand Tours and their average finishing position across all three before they made it on to the podium.

Of the eight riders in the table above, only one went on to win a Grand Tour after their inaugural breakthrough performance – Fabio Aru at the 2015 Vuelta…

Increasing the scope from those who had never before finished in the top 40 of a Grand Tour to those who had never before finished in the top 30 gives us six new riders in the list – Froome, Isidro Nozal, Nairo Quintana, Damiano Cunego, Peter Velits and Alberto Contador.

It’s interesting to see both Contador and Quintana appear on the list now…obviously all three also went on to win multiple Grand Tours after their initial breakthrough performances. Again there’s perhaps a fact which sets Froome apart from the others on the list which is the number of Grand Tours he had ridden before his first podium – and a related fact, his age.

So let’s alter the table a bit to include these two pieces of information and instead of ordering it by average finishing position, let’s order it by the number of prior Grand Tours each rider had taken part in.

Froome is third in the list having previously taken part in three Grand Tours before the 2011 Vuelta (including a disqualification from the 2010 Giro for holding on to a race vehicle). He’s also the second oldest after one hit wonder Santiago Perez. The reigning Tour champion was also almost two years older than Contador and three years older than Quintana both of whom had only ridden one previous Grand Tour as opposed to Froome’s three.

Before the 2011 Vuelta, Froome had won nothing which meant he was there very much to ride in the service of team leader Bradley Wiggins. But did Froome not win races because he wasn’t trusted with leadership of a team or was he not trusted with leadership because he didn’t win races? This is a question that a spreadsheet or a set of statistics cannot answer.

Froome did come from nothing to finish on the podium of the 2011 Vuelta. He wasn’t the first to do something like this, he won’t be the last. But given his age, the number of Grand Tours he had already ridden and the phenomenal sustained success he has achieved since then sets him apart from others.

But is this enough to cause the scepticism and from some quarters, downright accusations, which Froome has had to endure over the last five years? As usual with all things related to Froome, or indeed Team Sky, everyone probably has their mind made up by now and no amount of numbers and tables are going to change that.

http://www.irishpeloton.com/2017/02/froomes-emergence-from-the-shadows/

it's worth remembering also that some riders don't get the call to rise a GT because they are not good enough e.g. nearly Froome at the infamous '11 Vuelta

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

This article is more than a year old, so maybe it’s been posted here before, but an interesting attempt to compare Froome’s meteoric rise to success with other riders who won their first GT rather suddenly:

It is this transformation [in the 2011 Vuelta] that sceptics use as as a stick to beat Froome with. This performance came from nowhere. He had shown no signs of being able to race like this before – in any race, let alone a Grand Tour. Cyclists weren’t supposed to be able to do this. They’re either supposed to be world beaters from an early age like Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault or they’re supposed to gradually improve year by year until they finally crack the big time, like Miguel Indurain and Carlos Sastre.

I‘ve number crunched the last 30 years worth of Grand Tours to find out if there are any riders who have done something similar. The following table shows eight riders who suddenly finished on the podium of a Grand Tour having never before finished in the top 40. It shows each of these riders best previous result in each of the three Grand Tours and their average finishing position across all three before they made it on to the podium.

Of the eight riders in the table above, only one went on to win a Grand Tour after their inaugural breakthrough performance – Fabio Aru at the 2015 Vuelta…

Increasing the scope from those who had never before finished in the top 40 of a Grand Tour to those who had never before finished in the top 30 gives us six new riders in the list – Froome, Isidro Nozal, Nairo Quintana, Damiano Cunego, Peter Velits and Alberto Contador.

It’s interesting to see both Contador and Quintana appear on the list now…obviously all three also went on to win multiple Grand Tours after their initial breakthrough performances. Again there’s perhaps a fact which sets Froome apart from the others on the list which is the number of Grand Tours he had ridden before his first podium – and a related fact, his age.

So let’s alter the table a bit to include these two pieces of information and instead of ordering it by average finishing position, let’s order it by the number of prior Grand Tours each rider had taken part in.

Froome is third in the list having previously taken part in three Grand Tours before the 2011 Vuelta (including a disqualification from the 2010 Giro for holding on to a race vehicle). He’s also the second oldest after one hit wonder Santiago Perez. The reigning Tour champion was also almost two years older than Contador and three years older than Quintana both of whom had only ridden one previous Grand Tour as opposed to Froome’s three.

Before the 2011 Vuelta, Froome had won nothing which meant he was there very much to ride in the service of team leader Bradley Wiggins. But did Froome not win races because he wasn’t trusted with leadership of a team or was he not trusted with leadership because he didn’t win races? This is a question that a spreadsheet or a set of statistics cannot answer.

Froome did come from nothing to finish on the podium of the 2011 Vuelta. He wasn’t the first to do something like this, he won’t be the last. But given his age, the number of Grand Tours he had already ridden and the phenomenal sustained success he has achieved since then sets him apart from others.

But is this enough to cause the scepticism and from some quarters, downright accusations, which Froome has had to endure over the last five years? As usual with all things related to Froome, or indeed Team Sky, everyone probably has their mind made up by now and no amount of numbers and tables are going to change that.

http://www.irishpeloton.com/2017/02/froomes-emergence-from-the-shadows/

it's worth remembering also that some riders don't get the call to rise a GT because they are not good enough e.g. nearly Froome at the infamous '11 Vuelta

The late call for Froome to ride the Vuelta, ie. the short notice period this gave him to 'prepare' adds another level of mystery to the plot.

What did he have, 2/3 weeks notice?

So looking at some of the suggested methods...

Blood bags...was he likely to have some in storage just in case? He'd likely need 2 if not 3 bags. 2 weeks would seem very tight to complete the process of withdrawing, replenishing, reinfusing.

Epo...maybe, but in 2 weeks to get the major lift we saw he would need to be using some mega dosages. His ABP would be all over the place.

Aicar/GW5156....no, not in 2 weeks to see the kind of lift we saw.

HGH/Test...as above, not in 2 weeks.

Over the course of several months all of the above could be used in a program to explain the magic transformation, but not in 2/3 weeks.

The more i think about it, the more i think that the only possible thing i can think of that could bring about such a massive and more importantly sudden improvement (almost overnight) is a motor.

And i've never bought into the whole motors theory for one minute

 

[dacooley]

with a motor I fear froome wouldn't have been so modest and finished сobo at pena cabarga

 

[gillan1969]

@brownbobby

"free your mind and the rest will follow"

 

[brownbobby]

@brownbobby

"free your mind and the rest will follow"

I'm starting to feel terribly conflicted now :redface: :lol:

 

[gillan1969]

@macbindle

Hinault knows the story of what it takes to be a pro i.e. omerta

he also knows who is who in the pantheon of the greats of pro-cycling (modesty notwithstanding). I think he knows exactly the technicalities surrounding the AAF and the right to ride. HOWEVER, to now have the hapless Froome's name in lights alongside Mercxk and Hinault is just a step too far...at some point the irrational exuberance has to stop and someone has to take the punch bowl away...Hinault is currently standing bodyguard over the bowl awaiting its removal

 

[LaFlorecita]

Edit: woops, should have read a bit better .

 

[macbindle]

@macbindle

Hinault knows the story of what it takes to be a pro i.e. omerta

he also knows who is who in the pantheon of the greats of pro-cycling (modesty notwithstanding). I think he knows exactly the technicalities surrounding the AAF and the right to ride. HOWEVER, to now have the hapless Froome's name in lights alongside Mercxk and Hinault is just a step too far...at some point the irrational exuberance has to stop and someone has to take the punch bowl away...Hinault is currently standing bodyguard over the bowl awaiting its removal

Problem is he comes from a different era. I'm not for a second going to include Froome as a great because I cant accept him as a champion, but I suspect the nature of the sport means that we won't see riders with total dominance like EM, or possibly BH again.

Whether Hinault understands the rules, I couldn't say, but his pronouncement was factually wrong.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

That article MI quoted makes it sound like the big deal with Froome is his age and not the lack of results "Quintana and Contador also never finished inside the top-30 before their GT breakthrough, but they were 2-3 years younger when they podiumed a GT"
aye they finished 36th and 31st respectively both at 22 years old in their first GT and then went on to podium/win their next while also having several other one-week stage race results to prove their talent :lol:

I don't think Froome's age at the breakthrough is suspicious, it's the complete lack of any signs he could reach that level beforehand.

damn you pesky kids...did you not see the fax...the fax!!!!!!!

although yes and no...the age is suspicious because it meant he had had 6 years of being a full-time bike rider to demonstrate, once, just once that he was a Hinault or a Mercxk and so resolutely did he fail that he was about to be let go by his team.......

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

That article MI quoted makes it sound like the big deal with Froome is his age and not the lack of results "Quintana and Contador also never finished inside the top-30 before their GT breakthrough, but they were 2-3 years younger when they podiumed a GT"
aye they finished 36th and 31st respectively both at 22 years old in their first GT and then went on to podium/win their next while also having several other one-week stage race results to prove their talent :lol:

I don't think Froome's age at the breakthrough is suspicious, it's the complete lack of any signs he could reach that level beforehand.

damn you pesky kids...did you not see the fax...the fax!!!!!!!

although yes and no...the age is suspicious because it meant he had had 6 years of being a full-time bike rider to demonstrate, once, just once that he was a Hinault or a Mercxk and so resolutely did he fail that he was about to be let go by his team.......

I read the article in more detail and noticed the writer does point out froome had absolutely no results... so I deleted my post

 

[gillan1969]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

SDB is brilliant...you could literally have taken his transparency bit and allotted it to any time frame in SKYs existence...once again it all comes down to faith...not action

SDB knighted for services to bullsh*t

 

[brownbobby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

SDB is brilliant...you could literally have taken his transparency bit and allotted it to any time frame in SKYs existence...once again it all comes down to faith...not action

SDB knighted for services to bullsh*t

I know i shouldn't say it, but that's a great write up of the stage as it unfolded. The fuelling bit, or at least the importance of it does sound like nonsense, but the tactics, the timings....no BS there, we saw it all happen exactly as he said.

Ignoring the second half of the article, just like the stage itself in realtime, wether it was fiction or non fiction, i really enjoyed it

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Froome's current cq score of 3498 (2 shy of 3500, awww) is surely the highest EVER? I remember Gilbert doing like 3200 prior to Lombardia 2011 and that was the highest then.

But hey remember back in 2013 when the line was that Sky only win because they always get lucky with the competition?

From the PRR Froome thread:

What's the record for the highest current CQ ranking? Froome is sitting at 3498 points.

Sagan has the record: 3512 points. Next is Gilbert.

 

[armchairclimber]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

SDB is brilliant...you could literally have taken his transparency bit and allotted it to any time frame in SKYs existence...once again it all comes down to faith...not action

SDB knighted for services to bullsh*t

I know i shouldn't say it, but that's a great write up of the stage as it unfolded. The fuelling bit, or at least the importance of it does sound like nonsense, but the tactics, the timings....no BS there, we saw it all happen exactly as he said.

Ignoring the second half of the article, just like the stage itself in realtime, wether it was fiction or non fiction, i really enjoyed it

Can't abide Brailsford, he'd have been better keeping his take in it out. The narrative though is interesting and does tie in exactly with what we saw as the stage unfolded. Kelly or one of the other pundits was even saying at the time that every member of the Sky team was out on the road with food and drink. It was a brutal and audacious plan ... but even so, to actually pull it off was quite incredible and required all sorts of circumstance to allow it (especially within the Dumo group).

Never been a fan of Froome but It was hard not to be impressed by the chutzpah, whatever the clinic angle.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

Great post, man. :geek:

 

[Alpe73]

@macbindle

Hinault knows the story of what it takes to be a pro i.e. omerta

he also knows who is who in the pantheon of the greats of pro-cycling (modesty notwithstanding). I think he knows exactly the technicalities surrounding the AAF and the right to ride. HOWEVER, to now have the hapless Froome's name in lights alongside Mercxk and Hinault is just a step too far...at some point the irrational exuberance has to stop and someone has to take the punch bowl away...Hinault is currently standing bodyguard over the bowl awaiting its removal

Well ...he really does not have much power to block someone’s place. Out of his hands. Time will tell.

 

[silvergrenade]

see, if you are willing to attribute what froome achieved to exclusive doping at 100% while the whole cycling should be divided between sagans whose immense talent was not questioned from the early years fair enough, no problem, but I'll quit. if you consider a possibility of him being trained incorrectly and not having access to high-end doping drugs, we have something to discuss.

the root of an problem is in sudenness of froome's transformation. according too many people froome kinda doesn't deserve to have such as highly professional doping programme as his competitors, the most talented gc riders in the world, have. that's not what i understand.

For me it's a question of where the riders would be if the peloton was clean. I look at guys like Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Valverde and Nibali and what they achieved as kids and it's totally plausible to me that they're still destroying people. They have that natural talent and where born to be the best. Even if Froome's success isn't 100% down to doping, in my eyes he owes a much larger part of his success to his doping program than the other superstar cyclists riding today. Where would Sagan and Valverde be without doping in a clean field? No one knows for sure, but everything suggests they'd still be awesome. Where would Froome be without doping in a clean field? Again, hard to say for sure, but I'd be surprised if he was even still a pro.

I know it's naïve of me to think like this, but even in a thoroughly dirty sport like cycling I always hope that the doper that wins is naturally gifted to the point where the result wouldn't be much different if everyone was clean. Froome post-2011 has been continuously spitting in the face of that.

I do actually agree with some of the sentiment of what you say...but in this discussion what we don't know is when the other 'superstars' you refer to actually began doping. There's plenty of anecdotal and case evidence of 'kids' being put on programs from very young ages. So how do we know that this amazing 'natural' talent we saw with the riders you mention from a young age wasn't already the result in part of doping?

It's been suggested before that Froome riding clean for several years at WT level, against an already heavily doped field, was a sign of his natural ability. Then following that getting with the program in 2011 the reason, at least in part, for the transformation and what came afterwards.

Of course that's purely guesswork at this stage, but most on here seem to be settled on the notion that almost all of the peloton, certainly mid to late noughties, was doping. So the notion that Froome was already on a similar programme to everyone else and then just suddenly found the magic formula to make such a massive transformation in his already doped self...well its as difficult to believe as anything else offered by way of explanation.

This is probably a big reason why I support Froome.
Who knows when the European boys start taking things. They learn quickly because they are in an environment full of such things.
No way is Egan Bernal cleans. Probably on a very good doping program. What is he? 21? 22?
When did Nibs broke out? Or Sagan? Or Berie?
So, who's the most talented? Chris Froome.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

What a great post! Cheers!