Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[hektoren]

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

Nope. BMI just doesn't fit the short muscular build or the tall skinny type, s'all. Many top athletes will classify as obese based on their BMI, as muscle weighs a lot more than fat, and correspondingly a lot of athletes being tall and skinny will be classed as underweight.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Nope. BMI just doesn't fit the short muscular build or the tall skinny type, s'all.

Whatever. I don't believe it.

Just like I don't believe Froome.

 

[Miburo]

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.

Wtf is Walsh talking about? The reason why he rode away was cause no one could believe that Froome attacked there. That's the only reason why.

 

[hektoren]

Whatever. I don't believe it.

Just like I don't believe Froome.

I'm so impressed. Go on! Believe that you have the ability to judge whether a guy with long, slender limbs is doped by looking at photos of him. It has nothing to do with real life, and it is definitely the lowtech version of a doping lab, but if it makes you happy....

 

[Froome19]

Am I on the right forum?

No. You're in the wrong country.

You surely can't be on the right forum if Galic Ho is posting 6 word posts..

 

[King Boonen]

This is a brilliant example of when you should just abandon it.

 

[spetsa]

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......

You forgot to remind us that you are nearly an elite athlete also. I almost had forgotten your qualifications.

 

[timbo25]

you see people like froome in the hospital on an av, to weak to ride a bike for 100 meters and you guys even question if he is not doped up, talk to doctors or a physiologist, they will explain it.

 

[Froome19]

Wtf is Walsh talking about? The reason why he rode away was cause no one could believe that Froome attacked there. That's the only reason why.

I agree Walsh's comment was rubbish, but in his defence and for what it is worth he isn't talking about Froome's reasoning behind his attack. He mentions the reasoning in his second tweet. There are two separate factors here, the way Froome rode away and the reason he rode away. Don't mix them together.

 

[Froome19]

you see people like froome in the hospital on an av, to weak to ride a bike for 100 meters and you guys even question if he is not doped up, talk to doctors or a physiologist, they will explain it.

And let me guess you are evidently neither.. as otherwise I highly doubt you would say such a statement.

 

[timbo25]

And let me guess you are evidently neither.. as otherwise I highly doubt you would say such a statement.

i studied, so i know a thing or two

 

[King Boonen]

i studied, so i know a thing or two

Are those two things the difference between your **** and your elbow?

 

[hektoren]

You forgot to remind us that you are nearly an elite athlete also. I almost had forgotten your qualifications.

Which is probably the best remark you've made ever 2 inches away from the bar-stool.

 

[spetsa]

Which is probably the best remark you've made ever 2 inches away from the bar-stool.

Don't give me so much credit, I was actually sitting on one

 

[The Hitch]

I agree Walsh's comment was rubbish, but in his defence and for what it is worth he isn't talking about Froome's reasoning behind his attack. He mentions the reasoning in his second tweet. There are two separate factors here, the way Froome rode away and the reason he rode away. Don't mix them together.

I dont think Miburo mixed the 2. I think you may have mixed them up instead (no worries it is a bit confusing).

The phrase "reason why froome rode away" can be a bit ambiguous in this case. It could refer to Froomes motivation for attacking in the first place, or it can refer to the reason why he was able to ride away. These themselves are 2 different things.

You seem to think Miburo is talking about Froome's motivation for attacking, but he isn't. Miburo instead was talking about why Froome was able to ride away. The reason Mbiuro offers is that everyone else was surprised by Froomes attack and therefore didn't react.

And that is very much linked with Miburo's criticism of Walsh. That Walsh is wrong to read so much into Froome's attack. - He was wrong to read so much into Froomes attack, says Miburo, because Froome's attack is easily explained away by the lack of reaction from everyone else.

Not that it really matters, but i had a few free minutes

 

[Froome19]

You seem to think Miburo is talking about Froome's motivation for attacking, but he isn't. Miburo instead was talking about why Froome was able to ride away. The reason Mbiuro offers is that everyone else was surprised by Froomes attack and therefore didn't react.

I will repeat:

There are two separate factors here, the way Froome rode away and the reason he rode away. Don't mix them together.

Though you are right that Miburo was referencing the reason he was allowed to get away in the first place. I guess reason can be ambiguous.

 

[The Hitch]

I will repeat:

There are two separate factors here, the way Froome rode away and the reason he rode away. Don't mix them together.
.

Why would I mix them together

No one has mixed them together thus far, so your repeated advice for people not to mix them together, by its very nature suggests that you are the one who is confused.

 

[observer]

It wasn't really an attack anyway, he was just keeping safe near the front. Evans was up there as well, but he just kept a tempo and was happy to follow.
No contenders seemed to panic at all, and Froome would know he wouldn't keep away.

 

[jw1979]

that acceleration by Froome so he could descend alone would certainly catch my eye if i were contador or another GC hopeful's DS! not because he made it look easy, but that he wanted to descend alone at all. maybe it's just the early-race nerves, and Froome can descend just fine, but taking some risks on a descent to try to split the bunch or let Froome self destruct like Wiggins is worth a shot, yeah?

is Froome typically a good descender?

 

[hfer07]

that acceleration by Froome so he could descend alone would certainly catch my eye if i were contador or another GC hopeful's DS! not because he made it look easy, but that he wanted to descend alone at all. maybe it's just the early-race nerves, and Froome can descend just fine, but taking some risks on a descent to try to split the bunch or let Froome self destruct like Wiggins is worth a shot, yeah?

is Froome typically a good descender?

apparently not. He must learn to control his nerves a bit and avoid wasting energy like that-in a 3-week race every ounce of fuel counts specially in the last week where the tough stages are placed...

 

[Ripper]

Why would I mix them together

No one has mixed them together thus far, so your repeated advice for people not to mix them together, by its very nature suggests that you are the one who is confused.

Froome19 is often confused.

 

[blackcat]

that acceleration by Froome so he could descend alone would certainly catch my eye if i were contador or another GC hopeful's DS! not because he made it look easy, but that he wanted to descend alone at all. maybe it's just the early-race nerves, and Froome can descend just fine, but taking some risks on a descent to try to split the bunch or let Froome self destruct like Wiggins is worth a shot, yeah?

is Froome typically a good descender?

how many have commented that this strategy to neutralise the risk, has just given all his rivals a leg-up to smash him on the downhill.

i think this is a massive poker tell to his competitors. the other downhills, are gonna hurt him much more, cos he played this hand.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

how many have commented that this strategy to neutralise the risk, has just given all his rivals a leg-up to smash him on the downhill.

i think this is a massive poker tell to his competitors. the other downhills, are gonna hurt him much more, cos he played this hand.

But I am pretty sure they would have tried that out no matter what. After all Wiggins struggled (albeit in the rain).

How many stages are there where, if they can drop him, Sky can't just pull them back?

 

[spalco]

If Froome has the form he should have right now, his opponents won't have another option but to make more or less desperate downhill attacks anyway. Froome's problems with descending (though not as bad as Wiggins') are known already. Might be that it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it won't change the race tactically one bit imo.

 

[blackcat]

But I am pretty sure they would have tried that out no matter what. After all Wiggins struggled (albeit in the rain).

How many stages are there where, if they can drop him, Sky can't just pull them back?

not sure. i dont like the psychological tell.

i have not looked at the route of the remaining 18 stages, i assume there may be one downhill decent finish. there may be more, there may be less.

i did not like the move tho. i think it demonstrated a psychological brittleness.

but then again, i aint a tour de france favourite am i

difference may be so arbitrary as a wet day on any finish that has a descent and only a few flat ks after it for porte et al to pull froome back