Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Don't be late Pedro]

No. The graph says "WT Podium", not "GT Podium". If Thomas started being a serious contender in the classics no one would find it odd, except insomuch as everything related to Sky is now suspicious.

Yes, you are correct that should read WT. That said a GT is part of the WT, no?

Oh, and if Thomas had won PR or Flanders this forum would be explode about how now the one day riders are all in on the doping as well. People were already hinting at it prior to the race. Fortunately, Thomas constantly crashing saved him from any embarrassment.

 

[hektoren]

Really ****ed in the pot now, haven't I. I see I've become the point of ridicule for a lot of the clinicians, and most humbly I have to confess: My wife's a size 38 in dress to get the appropriate arm-length, and I remember she's said she's a C-cup. I'm no bra-size connoisseur, so I incorrectly assumed she was a 38C. Rummaging her undies today (with the fear of being caught red-handed, has told me another story altogether. In GB size she's a 32C as her Triumph bras read). She's still 42 kg and 172.
I can only say that I'm sorry. My mistake.

And for the entire forum, I'm sorry I brought this up. My point was that taking a glance at the physique of an elite athlete, and even indeed his/her BMI-value, won't give an indication of doping. We, as a species are just too varied. I have no special love for Froome, and I really don't care whether he's doped or not. I reall don't. My agenda has been do dispel myths that are just that. Myths.

 

[hrotha]

Yes, you are correct that should read WT. That said a GT is part of the WT, no?

Oh, and if Thomas had won PR or Flanders this forum would be explode about how now the one day riders are all in on the doping as well. People were already hinting at it prior to the race. Fortunately, Thomas constantly crashing saved him from any embarrassment.

I already addressed that:

except insomuch as everything related to Sky is now suspicious.

It wouldn't be because of Thomas himself, although if he were to win before spending a year or two on or near the podium it wouldn't help.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I already addressed that:

It wouldn't be because of Thomas himself, although if he were to win before spending a year or two on or near the podium it wouldn't help.

Fair enough. Personally, I have always thought of Thomas as a one day rider and that is where I expected his success to lie.
He did well in MSR but the crashes in PR and RVV do little to give an idea of where is real standing currently lies.

 

[Galic Ho]

Really ****ed in the pot now, haven't I. I see I've become the point of ridicule for a lot of the clinicians, and most humbly I have to confess: My wife's a size 38 in dress to get the appropriate arm-length, and I remember she's said she's a C-cup. I'm no bra-size connoisseur, so I incorrectly assumed she was a 38C. Rummaging her undies today (with the fear of being caught red-handed, has told me another story altogether. In GB size she's a 32C as her Triumph bras read). She's still 42 kg and 172.
I can only say that I'm sorry. My mistake.

And for the entire forum, I'm sorry I brought this up. My point was that taking a glance at the physique of an elite athlete, and even indeed his/her BMI-value, won't give an indication of doping. We, as a species are just too varied. I have no special love for Froome, and I really don't care whether he's doped or not. I reall don't. My agenda has been do dispel myths that are just that. Myths.

Extreme BMI measures often indicate something is wrong. For taller people with low BMI's and shorter people with very high ones. Think Froome for the first and for the others, think Mr Olympia male body builders. Neither are natural. Your wife is nothing like them.

BMI is as Ripper said, BUT the noteworthy indicator is that yes, when people fall into certain categories and visceral body fat is present, the statistical odds of being subject to any type of ailment goes UP. That would be for BMI's over 25. Go under 18 and yes, your health statistically on average does waver.

Does a fit athlete with muscle mass and BMI over 25 suffer? No...common sense should prevail. It's looking at the whole picture. Anyone saying nothing is wrong with Froome's build is in serious need of a wake up call. It's worse than what Wiggins did last year. It's turning cycling into a bigger joke than it was with Postal and Armstrong. But this has been done and dusted hundreds of times and the Sky fanboys try and derail it every time.

They still paying you lads the usual?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And basically no way of knowing where in between it falls. which doesn't exactly help it's usefulness.

But we kinda know what Sky offered the pro-conti-podium-rider in the midst of 2011: 100.000 pounds/euro's.

So, lets put one and two together. Perhaps that interpretation of DB wasnt so far of?

 

[hektoren]

Extreme BMI measures often indicate something is wrong. For taller people with low BMI's and shorter people with very high ones. Think Froome for the first and for the others, think Mr Olympia male body builders. Neither are natural. Your wife is nothing like them.

BMI is as Ripper said, BUT the noteworthy indicator is that yes, when people fall into certain categories and visceral body fat is present, the statistical odds of being subject to any type of ailment goes UP. That would be for BMI's over 25. Go under 18 and yes, your health statistically on average does waver.

Does a fit athlete with muscle mass and BMI over 25 suffer? No...common sense should prevail. It's looking at the whole picture. Anyone saying nothing is wrong with Froome's build is in serious need of a wake up call. It's worse than what Wiggins did last year. It's turning cycling into a bigger joke than it was with Postal and Armstrong. But this has been done and dusted hundreds of times and the Sky fanboys try and derail it every time.

They still paying you lads the usual?

I'm very well paid by the second largest hospital in Norway, thank you. Sky is strictly pro-bono.
Froome's build would at first consultance, and with no previous medical history, be noted, rest assured, but over time, with no particular symptoms or suspicious test-results, knowing what he does for a living, I'd be willing to lay any suspicion aside. I think we should, too. Judging by photography only is fraught with error, and quite frankly not worth doodly-squat.

 

[hektoren]

And another thing, making an honest mistake like the one I did apparently evoke accusations, condemnation and even graphical creativity among the more trigger-happy forum members. Rather than going full-blast, in an ideal world I'd wish for a more open, more inquisitive and altogether less condemning stance when you come across something that goes against the grain. But, on an anonymous forum that is probably too much to be asking for? Just my 2cw.

 

[the sceptic]

Dont worry, i dont think anyone took your trolling seriously to begin with.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I'm very well paid by the second largest hospital in Norway, thank you. Sky is strictly pro-bono.
Froome's build would at first consultance, and with no previous medical history, be noted, rest assured, but over time, with no particular symptoms or suspicious test-results, knowing what he does for a living, I'd be willing to lay any suspicion aside. I think we should, too. Judging by photography only is fraught with error, and quite frankly not worth doodly-squat.

Sky cycling team is big in Norway?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Sky cycling team is big in Norway?

More like EBH is popular in Norway.

 

[hektoren]

Dont worry, i dont think anyone took your trolling seriously to begin with.

It's not trolling though. Just a mistake from a 54 year old guy who didn't dare ask his wife about bra size while he was online......

 

[hektoren]

Sky cycling team is big in Norway?

No. Kimmage's questions over Sky's handling of EBH's talent at the pre-depart TdF press conference could very well have been written by a lot of norwegian cycling aficionados. Norwegian riders like Arvesen and their conduct pulling the Sky-train for Cavendish's worlds victory didn't exactly make a lot of new norwegian friends either. Hushovd had a puncture, and the remaining three norwegians were all to busy pulling Cavendish forward to go back and help him.

 

[blackcat]

No. Kimmage's questions over Sky's handling of EBH's talent at the pre-depart TdF press conference could very well have been written by a lot of norwegian cycling aficionados. Norwegian riders like Arvesen and their conduct pulling the Sky-train for Cavendish's worlds victory didn't exactly make a lot of new norwegian friends either. Hushovd had a puncture, and the remaining three norwegians were all to busy pulling Cavendish forward to go back and help him.

there is an aphorism about Worlds, that goes something like "the shorts are more relevant than the jerseys". but i think teams now usually have their own national kit knicks too. perhaps, "the helmets are more relevant..."

i remember Paolo Lafranchi chasing Simoni down in 2001 in the azzurri garb.

here is a thread at bikeradar
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=15637901

 

[Gregga]

Froome too strong in the last climb in today's stage, couldn't help attacking like a mad dog... 3 boring weeks coming...

 

[the sceptic]

Looks like Walsh has found a new rider to cheer on

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 9 m

Froome made the attack solely because he wanted to pick his own lines and speed on slightly tricky defence. It was impressive.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 11 m

In terms of GC contenders the ease with which Froome rode away from peloton on small climb before finish was significant.

 

[Gregga]

Looks like Walsh has found a new rider to cheer on

He'd better tweet "the Tour is over", i'm afraid...

 

[ebandit]

?

Froome too strong in the last climb in today's stage, couldn't help attacking like a mad dog... 3 boring weeks coming...

you don't like attacking riding............................................?

Mark L

 

[webbie146]

I suggest you have a look in a dictionary and figure out the definition of "underweight". By the way at 170 cm and 61 kg your BMI isn't pretty low at all (21).

BMI isn't perfect but it is a nice guideline. A BMI of 17 could still be normal.14.2 however...

Imo BMI is underrated. Doctors and dietitians use BMI all the time to determine if someone's overweight or underweight.

"Underweight is a term describing a human whose body weight is considered too low to be healthy."

lol awesome calling someone that u have never even seen underweight based on her BMI.
MBI is a piece of ****. It's just not accurate.

On topic: Froome looked strong today. Have a feeling Contador is gonna get his *** kicked the coming 3 weeks unfortunately..

 

[veganrob]

Froome too strong in the last climb in today's stage, couldn't help attacking like a mad dog... 3 boring weeks coming...

Yep. What stage before Phat will announce the Sky victory party.

 

[gooner]

Looks like Walsh has found a new rider to cheer on

I don't think we should be surprised to see Walsh tweeting regularly on Sky and Froome again but if he thinks that little dig is significant enough to draw serious conclusions as to the overall context of the race, he's not living in the real world. Roche in the end had no problem in helping to bring him back.

 

[JRanton]

I don't think we should be surprised to see Walsh tweeting regularly on Sky and Froome again but if he thinks that little dig is significant enough to draw serious conclusions as to the overall context of the race, he's not living in the real world. Roche in the end had no problem in helping to bring him back.

As the Cound woman put it: ''Walsh is smoking his socks''.

 

[goggalor]

Looks like Walsh has found a new rider to cheer on

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 9 m

Froome made the attack solely because he wanted to pick his own lines and speed on slightly tricky defence. It was impressive.

David Walsh ‏@DavidWalshST 11 m

In terms of GC contenders the ease with which Froome rode away from peloton on small climb before finish was significant.

But was it gutsy?

 

[LaFlorecita]

"Underweight is a term describing a human whose body weight is considered too low to be healthy."

lol awesome calling someone that u have never even seen underweight based on her BMI.
MBI is a piece of ****. It's just not accurate.

On topic: Froome looked strong today. Have a feeling Contador is gonna get his *** kicked the coming 3 weeks unfortunately..

42kg for 172cm is considered to low to be healthy

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

I am going ahead and call BS on this.

The number in a bra size is measurement under the breast so you are telling us that your wife has a chest 96.5 cm wide without even including her breasts even tho she only weights 42?

According to you, your wife is the same height as me ( ya tall fella here) and weights the same as my 1.55 cm high sister who already is pretty damn slim.

So either your wife has the most weirdly shaped body on the planet, or she is missing some limbs in order to bring her weight down ( marginal gains and all that)

Oh and just for reference, my 155cm, 42kg sister wears a 32B bra because 30's are hard to find. And a few friends of mine all between 165/170 and 50/60 wear 32's or 34's.

Anyway to try to put all of this into the context of the topic, i think you are trying the hardest you can to justify froome's physical condition by posting some damn easy to spot BS.

Interesting as I was about to google Radcliffe's stats....I,m also 174cm and 53kg. BUT 38C breasts !!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????

Now that's when I knew HEKTOREN you were making all this up ! no way can a woman, yet alone a marathon runner have those size breasts !! Her breasts alone would weigh 5kgs.

When you are so slim you have very small boobs !! now quit with the trolling.

Agreed with Parrulo. For such a small lady to have such a large chest... Guess Bro Deal is spot on

Just for reference I am 170cm, 67 kg and my EU bra size is 75E which according to this bra size converter is size 34D in the US and 34DD in the UK. My 160cm, 45 kg friend wears 65B which would be 30A and 30B in the US and UK. So yeah.

All this is nice information, but what's really important is that you do your Kegels.