Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1319 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Nighttrain99 said:
If Froome wins this Tour and then the Vuelta, and I think he will, does he enter the record books as the greatest GT racer of all time? From donkey to GOAT...
I think he will too, and that will make 5 GT's in a row. That would make him the greatest athlete in the history of mankind, which is why anyone who believes he is cleans is so clearly mentally deficient.
He’s going to win all three this year. Incremental increases - peak form.... May thru September. No problem.
I'm thinking Cyclocross Worlds for the off season. Clearly he has the talent after the Roubaix stage...speaking of which, Roubaix next year too. He's shown this kind of potential since he was a lad, so I'm thinking me might consider shooting for winning every classic in a season. Seems plausible.
Then wait to he retires and comes back 4 years later! :cool:
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
ChewbaccaDefense said:
He's shown this kind of potential since he was a lad, so I'm thinking me might consider shooting for winning every classic in a season. Seems plausible.
Now you are just being ridiculous. There's no way he could win Paris-Tours or Milan-San Remo. All the rest maybe.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, we all know that, and no he wasn't talking about winning the Vuelta he was talking about riding the Vuelta. Not sure why you are mentioning it.

You are citing Armstrong's decision to only ride the Tour, and not the other GTs as being a pragmatic, doping related decision. Nothing to do with sharing things out. If you go for 7 straight wins you clearly don't care about being seen to take the pi55.

That is the bit that is in your head. He didn't ride them because it wouldn't have made him any richer, or indeed more famous.
It would now though. Times moved on. More to the point, aside from pisstaking, I could be mistaken, but seem to recall that fewer targeted races lessened the testing load. Seems that barrier was surmounted.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Scott SoCal said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Nighttrain99 said:
If Froome wins this Tour and then the Vuelta, and I think he will, does he enter the record books as the greatest GT racer of all time? From donkey to GOAT...
I think he will too, and that will make 5 GT's in a row. That would make him the greatest athlete in the history of mankind, which is why anyone who believes he is cleans is so clearly mentally deficient.
I
He’s going to win all three this year. Incremental increases - peak form.... May thru September. No problem.
I'm thinking Cyclocross Worlds for the off season. Clearly he has the talent after the Roubaix stage...speaking of which, Roubaix next year too. He's shown this kind of potential since he was a lad, so I'm thinking me might consider shooting for winning every classic in a season. Seems plausible.
He’s going all Eddy on us. All he has to do is put on about 2 kilos and hit the leg press in the winter. He’ll out-kick Sagan without a problem. You think Nibali was good on the Poggio? Wait until dawg goes all F*llR*tard...

Primavera will never be the same with the bowl-legged-elbows-out sprint win.
 
rata de sentina said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
He's shown this kind of potential since he was a lad, so I'm thinking me might consider shooting for winning every classic in a season. Seems plausible.
Now you are just being ridiculous. There's no way he could win Paris-Tours or Milan-San Remo. All the rest maybe.
I don't think you appreciate how much Badzilla and asthma prepare you for cycling...
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
macbindle said:
Yes, we all know that, and no he wasn't talking about winning the Vuelta he was talking about riding the Vuelta. Not sure why you are mentioning it.

You are citing Armstrong's decision to only ride the Tour, and not the other GTs as being a pragmatic, doping related decision. Nothing to do with sharing things out. If you go for 7 straight wins you clearly don't care about being seen to take the pi55.

That is the bit that is in your head. He didn't ride them because it wouldn't have made him any richer, or indeed more famous.
It would now though. Times moved on
Yes, it would, although I don't know where the big money comes from these days.

.
More to the point, aside from pisstaking, I could be mistaken, but seem to recall that fewer targeted races lessened the testing load. Seems that barrier was surmounted.
I don't think Armstrong worried too much about the testing regime, do you? It was both technically and financially surmountable and Verbruggen has taken the exact details to his grave.

For Froome? At a guess I'd say whatever he does that accounts for his dramatic rise is as yet undetectable, or perhaps was a one-off treatment with permanent effects.

He was troubled by the Salbutamol AAF, and the length of time from exposure to outcome coupled with the negative comments from key figures within the UCI and ASO suggested that they are not in his pocket.

Then the case was dropped under rather surprising circumstances, although the scientist responsible for the test expressing a lack of faith in his own test was probably enough to sink the case.
 
Sponsorship is not, in potential, strictly about numbers reached at x time; sponsorship is also about branding and whatever enhances the brand value. If one is “selling” Oakley and Michelob to a know-nothing US audience, then no, the Giro and Vuelta don’t matter—nor would it matter to Nike.. This may not be the case for other global audiences and other riders.

@mac, it’s been years since I’ve gone over that material but as I recall from Floyd, Tyler and others, there was still not the freedom to dope flagrantly anywhere, anytime. The fact that things could be made to go away didn’t make it a desirable situation.
 
So we have two competing possibilities here. Hogs suggestion that Armstrong limited his GT racing to the Tour in order to not anger other riders and risk jealously, and another possibility that he limited himself in order to limit his exposure to dope testing.

Either of these arguments work against Hog's accusations against Froome. Froome is doing the absolute opposite of limiting exposure to both dope tests and jealousy.

I think it is probably better to accept that Froome probably dopes, just like many other winners, and leave it at that rather than going into long flights of pure fantasy about his and other riders motivations and thought-processes. Or, at least if you do....think them through first. ;)
 
I don’t think they’re competing possibilities. More mutually reinforcing along with the lack of monetary or gain of fame relative to effort. And the oral history was out there if one bothered. Hog’s remark was half humorous throwaway as it was.
 
thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:
At least Armstrong had the decency to dope hard for one GT then head back to Texas. Dawg wants to own it all! :eek:
Decency? You think it was because of 'decency'? :lol:
Froome just dodged an Armstrong level positive test bullet and now he wants to win three GTs a year! Armstrong was at least smart enough to glow only for half a year and let the Italians and Spaniards win a GT or two.
The Italians were even more colluso - Vegni putting up the millions for Froome to humiliate them.
Now Silvio Martinelli (most boring commentator) of the RAI climbing up the a?se of Sky as if all is right with the world every time CF is on screen.
Brown-nosing or what.

At least the Spanish got Nairo to defeat Sky that time when Alberto helped out.
 
TourOfSardinia said:
thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:
At least Armstrong had the decency to dope hard for one GT then head back to Texas. Dawg wants to own it all! :eek:
Decency? You think it was because of 'decency'? :lol:
Froome just dodged an Armstrong level positive test bullet and now he wants to win three GTs a year! Armstrong was at least smart enough to glow only for half a year and let the Italians and Spaniards win a GT or two.
The Italians were even more colluso - Vegni putting up the millions for Froome to humiliate them.
Now Silvio Martinelli (most boring commentator) of the RAI climbing up the a?se of Sky as if all is right with the world every time CF is on screen.
Brown-nosing or what.

At least the Spanish got Nairo to defeat Sky that time when Alberto helped out.
He's the top guy at the moment. You don't like him, I don't like him, but he is the top guy. TV stations cannot ignore this anymore than race owners
 
TourOfSardinia said:
thehog said:
macbindle said:
thehog said:
At least Armstrong had the decency to dope hard for one GT then head back to Texas. Dawg wants to own it all! :eek:
Decency? You think it was because of 'decency'? :lol:
Froome just dodged an Armstrong level positive test bullet and now he wants to win three GTs a year! Armstrong was at least smart enough to glow only for half a year and let the Italians and Spaniards win a GT or two.
The Italians were even more colluso - Vegni putting up the millions for Froome to humiliate them.
Now Silvio Martinelli (most boring commentator) of the RAI climbing up the a?se of Sky as if all is right with the world every time CF is on screen.
Brown-nosing or what.

At least the Spanish got Nairo to defeat Sky that time when Alberto helped out.
one's personal butthurt aside, how did froome winning the giro humilate italians? what sense do you put in these words?
 
I've largely distanced myself from getting to caught up with road cycling the last 5 years due to the strangle hold Sky have had on the GTs ....

I have been pulled back in recently through the classics season this year but that image on the 2nd last climb with Sky literally overflowing out the front of the peleton is has conditioned me to well and truly expect the same !
 
Re:

macbindle said:
They have only had a strangle hold on the GTs since last autumn.

The TdF has been the least exciting for a while though.
True poorly worded. More my perception of there ability to choose to win a GT at there leisure. It appears up until recently when there reputation is shot anyway they were at least happy to leave scraps for others
 
As you say, it is your perception, rather than any explicit reality. Ultimately they are there to win, but in previous years have balanced their racing programme to ensure the greatest chance of success at the Tour. This year they are gambling, but I suppose that shows the depth of their team and Chris Froome's level. Whether their exposure over the past year has anything to do with this I don't know. Froome signed up for the Giro before his AAF became public, but after he was notified of it. Prior to that it is important to remember that it was Wiggins and team management who came out badly from the FB hack and the DCMS. Froome came out of it unscathed.
 
Re:

ppanther92 said:
Let's not kid ourself - of course he makes it 4 in a row. Greatest achievment in cycling for sure, maybe in elite sports in general. Especially if he makes it 5 in a row. Who would have guessed some years ago...
if our perception is down to froome having ultimaly acquitted is a green light from wada, which explicitly hints "ok, boy, keep using doping as much as you want", yes, froome is going to take an easy win. but all in all i don't think it's so simple.
 
Putting apart the Clinic issues, he's still got a race to win. He's still put in the training and he's still got to get everything else right about how he rides, feeds, rests etc. Some on here would have you believe it's a walk in the park for him.

Clinic issues? There are some, but I'm not convinced a green light from WADA is one of them. I think expensive and exceed lawyers sorted that one out.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Putting apart the Clinic issues, he's still got a race to win. He's still put in the training and he's still got to get everything else right about how he rides, feeds, rests etc. Some on here would have you believe it's a walk in the park for him.

Clinic issues? There are some, but I'm not convinced a green light from WADA is one of them. I think expensive and exceed lawyers sorted that one out.
The problem is that only a few years ago Brailsford was saying how in the new aeg a claean cycling, winning even two GT's in a single year was impossible. That has appartently all changed now due to wonder dawg.
 
Yes, there is almost certainly skullduggery afoot, and Brailsford is FoS, but this isn't the point I'm making really. Froome, in his current super-doped state or whatever, is actually a really good rider. Hard to watch, yes, but he still has to hold it all together. Doesn't mean I want to watch him, because I don't, but I think that within the parameters of doped cycling he probably is justifiably a great if he pulls off the 3 GT hat trick.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, there is almost certainly skullduggery afoot, and Brailsford is FoS, but this isn't the point I'm making really. Froome, in his current super-doped state or whatever, is actually a really good rider. Hard to watch, yes, but he still has to hold it all together. Doesn't mean I want to watch him, because I don't, but I think that within the parameters of doped cycling he probably is justifiably a great if he pulls off the 3 GT hat trick.
Ok, but in doped cycling their is no parameters. It is by definition crooked. So nobody can be considered jusifiably great. Especially Froome.
 
Also the unanswerable question of how good Froome would be if not at Sky. Having a team full of national champions etc means the USPS style of riding can be exploited to the max. The 80 km dash to the line at the Giro proved he could follow a plan (racing by numbers/committee) but the form yoyo-ing was very suspect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY