Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
Again, once more for your eyes only:
Froome´s performance jumps can be explained by the lack of specializied scientific programs in his earlier years.
OTOH, AC was high tech doped since at least when stepping on the pro scene (Fuentes link at the very beginning, 2-in-1 doping proof with the "steak-gate"; shady teams, shady DSes since the beginning).
Therefore we do NOT know which rider is more talented by just looking at performance jumps.
Finally peaking for a long time (Froome at the TdF & Vuelta) says nothing about doping or the lack of. And if we´d assume peaking for a long time would be a sign of doping, then AC hit the jackpot. He was peaking trou-out 2009 & 2010.

All i said and still say is this: I do not know if or to what extend Froome is doping now. In addition, he might be the more talented rider than AC. Even if that is hard to swallow for the hardcore AC lovers.
OTOH i do know that AC was (& may still is) doped up since at least the very beginning of his pro career.


Franklin said:
I acknowledge you skip over the Epo possibilities.

Ridiculous indeed.

*And about rich runners? You are a hoot ;)

Conjecture is dandy and fine about AC, but Froome can't be doping when he was younger due to HIV? Strange bias indeed.
Depends on what your definition of being rich is.
I guess, no i am sure, you´ll find numerous perfectly educated docs & scientists in africa who give you a full program for let´s say 10 Mio. KES. Easy affortable for the rich runners, especially for those who are further backed by the countries sports governing bodies. But certainly NOT for obscure mountain bikers.

Froome could have been doping on a low level amateurish scale.
AC did dope since the very beginning. That´s the big difference here.

P.S.: And now let´s all hope that Froome beats AC hard, devastating and mortifyingly. AC shall never ever win a GT again. All his fame and wealth is built on lies and cheating. He is no inch better than Armstrong. These kind of guys, lying straight faced w/o feeling any guilt but playing the victim instead, are just verminous.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Again, once more for your eyes only:
Froome´s performance jumps can be explained by the lack of specializied scientific programs in his earlier years.
OTOH, AC was high tech doped since at least when stepping on the pro scene (Fuentes link at the very beginning, 2-in-1 doping proof with the "steak-gate"; shady teams, shady DSes since the beginning).
Therefore we do NOT know which rider is more talented by just looking at performance jumps.
Finally peaking for a long time (Froome at the TdF & Vuelta) says nothing about doping or the lack of. And if we´d assume peaking for a long time would be a sign of doping, then AC hit the jackpot. He was peaking trou-out 2009 & 2010.

All i said and still say is this: I do not know if or to what extend Froome is doping now. In addition, he might be the more talented rider than AC. Even if that is hard to swallow for the hardcore AC lovers.
OTOH i do know that AC was (& may still is) doped up since at least the very beginning of his pro career.




Depends on what your definition of being rich is.
I guess, no i am sure, you´ll find numerous perfectly educated docs & scientists in africa who give you a full program for let´s say 10 Mio. KES. Easy affortable for the rich runners, especially for those who are further backed by the countries sports governing bodies. But certainly NOT for obscure mountain bikers.

Froome could have been doping on a low level amateurish scale.
AC did dope since the very beginning. That´s the big difference here.

P.S.: And now let´s all hope that Froome beats AC hard, devastating and mortifyingly. AC shall never ever win a GT again. All his fame and wealth is built on lies and cheating. He is no inch better than Armstrong. These kind of guys, lying straight faced w/o feeling any guilt but playing the victim instead, are just verminous.
I cannot believe I am hearing some of this stuff from you of all people. I know how much you loathe Lance but Froome is coming from much further back than Armstrong ever did.

In regards to Contador, I am sure there are lots of pro riders who doped from season 1 but not all of them were or are as good as Contador. It is surely not purely down to dope in his case.

Like I said a few pages back, Froome has gone through a bigger transformation than any other cyclist over the last 30 years, bigger than Armstrong, Chiappucci, Riis or any of them. If you believe this was achieved through doping, how is he any better than Armstrong? If he done it clean...well the mind boggles really.

I simply cannot get my head around the Froome transformation.
 
May 2, 2010
466
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Again, once more for your eyes only:
Froome´s performance jumps can be explained by the lack of specializied scientific programs in his earlier years.
OTOH, AC was high tech doped since at least when stepping on the pro scene (Fuentes link at the very beginning, 2-in-1 doping proof with the "steak-gate"; shady teams, shady DSes since the beginning).
Therefore we do NOT know which rider is more talented by just looking at performance jumps.
Finally peaking for a long time (Froome at the TdF & Vuelta) says nothing about doping or the lack of. And if we´d assume peaking for a long time would be a sign of doping, then AC hit the jackpot. He was peaking trou-out 2009 & 2010.

All i said and still say is this: I do not know if or to what extend Froome is doping now. In addition, he might be the more talented rider than AC. Even if that is hard to swallow for the hardcore AC lovers.
OTOH i do know that AC was (& may still is) doped up since at least the very beginning of his pro career.




Depends on what your definition of being rich is.
I guess, no i am sure, you´ll find numerous perfectly educated docs & scientists in africa who give you a full program for let´s say 10 Mio. KES. Easy affortable for the rich runners, especially for those who are further backed by the countries sports governing bodies. But certainly NOT for obscure mountain bikers.

Froome could have been doping on a low level amateurish scale.
AC did dope since the very beginning. That´s the big difference here.

P.S.: And now let´s all hope that Froome beats AC hard, devastating and mortifyingly. AC shall never ever win a GT again. All his fame and wealth is built on lies and cheating. He is no inch better than Armstrong. These kind of guys, lying straight faced w/o feeling any guilt but playing the victim instead, are just verminous.
Do you seriously believe all this stuff or it's just a side effect of your Froomefanboymania?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
pmcg76 said:
I cannot believe I am hearing some of this stuff from you of all people. I know how much you loathe Lance but Froome is coming from much further back than Armstrong ever did.

In regards to Contador, I am sure there are lots of pro riders who doped from season 1 but not all of them were or are as good as Contador. It is surely not purely down to dope in his case.

Like I said a few pages back, Froome has gone through a bigger transformation than any other cyclist over the last 30 years, bigger than Armstrong, Chiappucci, Riis or any of them. If you believe this was achieved through doping, how is he any better than Armstrong? If he done it clean...well the mind boggles really.

I simply cannot get my head around the Froome transformation.
You know i am a little heated now. :eek:
So i might got a little far...
It all started with the applied double standards by posters here and in the RR-Forum.
AC, a convicted doper is hailed & welcomed back, while Froome already gets the hate for almost nothing. He has yet to be linked to doping other than suspicious performance jumps.
I am still not sure what to think of Sky/Froome. I am not going this far to say Froome is clean, but he might be cleaner than AC & the other cheaters ever were. That is quite possible i must admit, when i look at Tuckers and Halamas numbers.
Further, i might be the only one here, i like the riding style of Froome. No clowning around like Schleck & AC, but straight forward Ullrich-like dieseling (is such word existing? :confused:). :)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
You know i am a little heated now. :eek:
So i might got a little far...
It all started with the applied double standards by posters here and in the RR-Forum.
AC, a convicted doper is hailed & welcomed back, while Froome already gets the hate for almost nothing. He has yet to be linked to doping other than suspicious performance jumps.
I am still not sure what to think of Sky/Froome. I am not going this far to say Froome is clean, but he might be cleaner than AC & the other cheaters ever were. That is quite possible i must admit, when i look at Tuckers and Halamas numbers.
Further, i might be the only one here, i like the riding style of Froome. No clowning around like Schleck & AC, but straight forward Ullrich-like dieseling (is such word existing? :confused:). :)
So you are prepared to believe that the single biggest transformation in the last 30 years of cycling is plausible without doping??
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
pmcg76 said:
So you are prepared to believe that the single biggest transformation in the last 30 years of cycling is plausible without doping??
No, no...
But it could be done with less doping, when everybody dopes less. And that is indicated by Tuckers and Halamas numbers.
It might be also done solely with shady science (using techniques and products who are not yet on banned lists) & the help of lots of money and endless sources.
I am sure something dubious is going on at Sky, but it might be done by bending the rules to the farthest legal point.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
pmcg76 said:
So you are prepared to believe that the single biggest transformation in the last 30 years of cycling is plausible without doping??
Is his jump that huge really? Suspiciously large i agree, but larger than anybody elses? In 2008 at age 23 he finished 84 in the tour which is better than any Gc result Wiggins had before 2009, and in 2009 he finished 36th in the giro which isn't half bad.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
You know i am a little heated now. :eek:
So i might got a little far...
It all started with the applied double standards by posters here and in the RR-Forum.
AC, a convicted doper is hailed & welcomed back, while Froome already gets the hate for almost nothing. He has yet to be linked to doping other than suspicious performance jumps.
I am still not sure what to think of Sky/Froome. I am not going this far to say Froome is clean, but he might be cleaner than AC & the other cheaters ever were. That is quite possible i must admit, when i look at Tuckers and Halamas numbers.
Further, i might be the only one here, i like the riding style of Froome. No clowning around like Schleck & AC, but straight forward Ullrich-like dieseling (is such word existing? :confused:). :)
I read you were a cycling follower in the eighties? How can u believe the performances of Froomey? He is a Claudio Cappucino apres la lettre.

Nice fellow but very too good to be true.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
I am not fully believing Froome. But it´s certainly cleaner than 2008 or 07 or 05... or 99

I like his style. No clowning around like AC, no crying around like the Baby-Schlecks.
 
pmcg76 said:
I cannot believe I am hearing some of this stuff from you of all people. I know how much you loathe Lance but Froome is coming from much further back than Armstrong ever did.

In regards to Contador, I am sure there are lots of pro riders who doped from season 1 but not all of them were or are as good as Contador. It is surely not purely down to dope in his case.

Like I said a few pages back, Froome has gone through a bigger transformation than any other cyclist over the last 30 years, bigger than Armstrong, Chiappucci, Riis or any of them. If you believe this was achieved through doping, how is he any better than Armstrong? If he done it clean...well the mind boggles really.

I simply cannot get my head around the Froome transformation.
Tell me more about Contadors doping program since you obviously have extensive knowledge about it. While you are at it, can you explain to me how and why different people react differently to the same PED's.

By the way, could you throw in your copy of Froome's medical records since you know his transformation was due to dope.
 
Cerberus said:
Is his jump that huge really? Suspiciously large i agree, but larger than anybody elses? In 2008 at age 23 he finished 84 in the tour which is better than any Gc result Wiggins had before 2009, and in 2009 he finished 36th in the giro which isn't half bad.
Yes it is, I stand by my point that it is the biggest jump in performance and results of any rider in the last 30 years. I looked at the performances/results of riders like Chiappucci, Riis, Santi Perez, Nozal, Beloki, Aitor Gonzalez, Leipheimer, Gonzalez de Galdeano(all considered guys who came out of nowhere) and they all had better performances/results than Froome prior to their big breakthrough i.e. podium on a GT.

Look at those names and think what is the thing that links them all.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cerberus said:
Is his jump that huge really? Suspiciously large i agree, but larger than anybody elses? In 2008 at age 23 he finished 84 in the tour which is better than any Gc result Wiggins had before 2009, and in 2009 he finished 36th in the giro which isn't half bad.
Armstrong is the biggest donkey after Riis to win a GT. Froome is not their yet as he has not won a GT, but his performances are a big jump and questionable, but not the biggest by a long shot.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Yes it is, I stand by my point that it is the biggest jump in performance and results of any rider in the last 30 years. I looked at the performances/results of riders like Chiappucci, Riis, Santi Perez, Nozal, Beloki, Aitor Gonzalez, Leipheimer, Gonzalez de Galdeano(all considered guys who came out of nowhere) and they all had better performances/results than Froome prior to their big breakthrough i.e. podium on a GT.

Look at those names and think what is the thing that links them all.
CQ says Brad's jump is bigger. Just sayin'.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cycle Chic said:
I wana know what he is doing with his head while riding ? he looks down every 3 seconds towards his pedals - what IS he doing ?????

seriously anyone know why he does that ?
Reading his power meter?
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Cycle Chic said:
I wana know what he is doing with his head while riding ? he looks down every 3 seconds towards his pedals - what IS he doing ?????

seriously anyone know why he does that ?
SRM watching
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
el chava said:
Nope. That would be Aitor Gonzalez.
Good one! That moron couldn't even perform at Feretti's golden boy squad of Fassa. That says enough. That guy was a real disgrace, he had a nice after carreer also I think :D
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/former-vuelta-champion-jailed

Or should we just say every Kelme cyclist of that time? What was the guy who went to Telecom? Sevilla?

Now we know why Heras was so welcome at the USPS...
 
May 2, 2010
466
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I am not fully believing Froome. But it´s certainly cleaner than 2008 or 07 or 05... or 99

I like his style. No clowning around like AC, no crying around like the Baby-Schlecks.
Methinks the only clowning around here art thou.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Aitor Gonzalez had some amazing performances though. Winning time trials with 1 minute +, one time even with bike problems if i remember correctly :D And that tour stage he won was pretty cool as well. Just riding away from the break like a motorcycle, impossible to catch his wheel
 
LaFlorecita said:
Inside the peloton people are saying that everytime he has to respond to an attack he checks his power meter which is why he has to bridge a gap.
Maybe not "why" he has to bridge a gap, but whether he "can" bridge a gap. I first noticed this in the Tour de France this year (didn't pay much attention in the Vuelta last year). I wonder if this is what has perhaps helped him improve so much - i.e. previously he rode on a whim, if he felt good or if he didn't feel good. But now, having tracked and monitored his numbers, he knows what he can do (but can't be trusted to do it instinctively), but if he follows the numbers.

Just a thought
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS