Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1342 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
Hmm...not so sure about that, I think 2012 TDF had Wiggins name all over it for various reasons and it would have taken more than a freak result for a relative unknown Froome at the 2011 Vuelta to change that...
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
macbindle said:
Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
Hmm...not so sure about that, I think 2012 TDF had Wiggins name all over it for various reasons and it would have taken more than a freak result for a relative unknown Froome at the 2011 Vuelta to change that...
I think McQuiad called it the 'fairytale" (a Wigggins win)
 
Re:

macbindle said:
@MI Froome might elaborate more at a later date. I find it strange that a man who suffered a horrific crash, spent several hours on the ground being given emergency care, then had an 8 hour operation, several days in intensive care, and then potentially weeks in hospital missing out on his one objective of the year (and indeed lifetime) is expected to account for himself to a handful of loon conspiracy theorists on the internet, most of whom dont seem to have much of a clue about bike riding.

@Gillan

SDB has no credibility when it comes to questions of his riders doping. He has credibility in many other areas, not least finding funding for, and running one of the most successful teams in cycling. The DCMS asked him about the former, and not the latter.

Actually the same can be said of Froome. He stretches my suspension of disbelief a little too far, especially when he talks about bilharzia accounting for little to no success in pro cycling, prior to podiiuming a GT. But, he has credibility in other areas. You could give me all the PEDS in the world and I still wouldn't win a GT, and the same could probably be said of most pro riders. Drugs or no drugs the guy has some serious qualities otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. Not many in this thread can see that because they are blinded by their own prejudice. That's not to say I like him. I dont.
well, of course, one follows the other........... ;)
 
Yes, there is most likely a key truth in there...

....but some doping teams can be more focused and organised than others. I find SDB both interesting and repugnant at the same time, but it's hard to discount what many ex-Sky riders have said about the efficiency and organisation of the outfit compared to many other teams.
 
Re:

Singer01 said:
I'm so embarrassed by some of the loons on this forum right now.
MANY here were called "loons", "FOS", "haters" etc. When anyone dare question Cancer Jesus/Wonderboy on whether or not he "doped", infact, they lopped it up like a thirsty dog, bought into his " I've been tested 967 times, more than any other athlete in the world" nonsense too, how'd that turn out?

Do i think Froome/Horner/Sagan/Nibali/Thomas are all doping now, or have in the past? Yes, yes i do.

Does it matter to you and thousands of others who honestly believe they're " all cleans"? Not really I'm sure.

The dopers and corruption of the sport has really turned me off from it, nearly completely. I'll watch it on TV occasionally, but my serious interest in it, was lost after LeMond(& later Cadel) retired.
 
I dont think you've understood.

Singer isnt questioning doing accusations. Hes questioning the notion that all the Froome crash stuff has been faked...from the paramedics working with him on the road...to the ambulance...to the hospital....everything.

I'm with him. It's ridiculous.
 
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
Singer01 said:
I'm so embarrassed by some of the loons on this forum right now.
MANY here were called "loons", "FOS", "haters" etc. When anyone dare question Cancer Jesus/Wonderboy on whether or not he "doped", infact, they lopped it up like a thirsty dog, bought into his " I've been tested 967 times, more than any other athlete in the world" nonsense too, how'd that turn out?
The armstrong loons and haters were asking valid question just as its very very valid to question a lot of what sky/ineos/froome have got up to from the PED/performance point of view.

Questioning whether a serious injury has been faked or not is ridiculous though as there is no rational motive (even trying to put yourself in Brailsford's unpleasant mind) and there are independent witnesses. My favourite is the guy who wants an easily fakeable z-ray or picture to give him proof of the story. I can send him an x-ray of my broken elbow with "Chris Froome" and "St Etienne" photoshopped on if it helps?!
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
Do you mean as just another doper that didn't get caught?
 
Re:

macbindle said:
It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
He is one of only 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours. His name would already be in the history books regardless. I don't think he would have got leadership over Wiggins in 2012, in fact, had Cobo not been there in the Vuelta Wiggins would probably have won it because the team would have subordinated the complete unknown Froome to a much more known quantity in Wiggins, who had at least some pedigree in difficult stage races with his (then) 4th at the 2009 Tour, 3rd at Paris-Nice and win at the Dauphiné, and after Froome ceded the lead to Wiggins on La Manzaneda they'd have been wary of him cracking again (because his form was a complete unknown, having not completed a grand tour for two and a half years).

I mean, as long as we're being conjectural, if he hadn't had the positive test at the 2017 Vuelta, he'd probably not have that position as one of the 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours, because he wouldn't have gone to the Giro in 2018... but then he would perhaps more likely have won a 5th Tour de France because he wouldn't have been going there racing both back to back.

But regardless of what happens, Chris Froome has a place in the record books. A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

I don't think Froome will ever be loved or lionised in the same way as, say, Coppi and Bartali were; I don't think - unless something terrible happens, which I hope it doesn't - he will be romanticised and his flaws airbrushed away like we've seen with Simpson or Pantani; his personality (and more so Brailsford's) doesn't lend itself to the kind of mythologizing we've seen around Indurain. There are perhaps fewer fantastical exploits that fans will regale younger viewers with in generations to come than his peers who've won all 3 GTs (Contador and Nibali)... but he does at least have one - Jafferau (this was something that was perhaps missing from the jigsaw of his place in history - a signature ride that would hallmark his career; until then things like Peña Cabarga and Pierre Saint-Martin were the best we could point to - but with the Bardonecchia raid, even though from many quarters it was greeted with derision and as a great big FU to fair play, his supporters finally had that signature moment that they can point to in the same way, say, Contador's supporters point at Fuente Dé). Chris Froome may never fully succeed in convincing the entire fanbase that he deserves a seat at the pantheon of the legends of the sport, but to deny he has long since earnt himself a place in the history books is crazy.
 
A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.
That is one hell of a sentence
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
macbindle said:
It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
He is one of only 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours. His name would already be in the history books regardless. I don't think he would have got leadership over Wiggins in 2012, in fact, had Cobo not been there in the Vuelta Wiggins would probably have won it because the team would have subordinated the complete unknown Froome to a much more known quantity in Wiggins, who had at least some pedigree in difficult stage races with his (then) 4th at the 2009 Tour, 3rd at Paris-Nice and win at the Dauphiné, and after Froome ceded the lead to Wiggins on La Manzaneda they'd have been wary of him cracking again (because his form was a complete unknown, having not completed a grand tour for two and a half years).

I mean, as long as we're being conjectural, if he hadn't had the positive test at the 2017 Vuelta, he'd probably not have that position as one of the 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours, because he wouldn't have gone to the Giro in 2018... but then he would perhaps more likely have won a 5th Tour de France because he wouldn't have been going there racing both back to back.

But regardless of what happens, Chris Froome has a place in the record books. A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

I don't think Froome will ever be loved or lionised in the same way as, say, Coppi and Bartali were; I don't think - unless something terrible happens, which I hope it doesn't - he will be romanticised and his flaws airbrushed away like we've seen with Simpson or Pantani; his personality (and more so Brailsford's) doesn't lend itself to the kind of mythologizing we've seen around Indurain. There are perhaps fewer fantastical exploits that fans will regale younger viewers with in generations to come than his peers who've won all 3 GTs (Contador and Nibali)... but he does at least have one - Jafferau (this was something that was perhaps missing from the jigsaw of his place in history - a signature ride that would hallmark his career; until then things like Peña Cabarga and Pierre Saint-Martin were the best we could point to - but with the Bardonecchia raid, even though from many quarters it was greeted with derision and as a great big FU to fair play, his supporters finally had that signature moment that they can point to in the same way, say, Contador's supporters point at Fuente Dé). Chris Froome may never fully succeed in convincing the entire fanbase that he deserves a seat at the pantheon of the legends of the sport, but to deny he has long since earnt himself a place in the history books is crazy.

you keep coming back to that, Froome isn't in this to be loved by a certain group of fans...

he doesn't care if he's accepted by fans
 
Re:

macbindle said:
A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.
That is one hell of a sentence
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Re: Re:

macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.
That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.
 
Re: Re:

Altitude said:
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.
That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.
I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Altitude said:
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.
That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.
I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.
And now, for a full non-sequitur . . . let me hammer Carlton Kirby. -- Just kidding. He's actually grown on me a bit.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Re: Re:

I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.
Wallace is far from universally revered, though I've found that his groupies--like those of Hemingway--tend to dwell in a small literary bubble.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY