• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 296 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
thehog said:
I thought it was strange why he attacked at the base of the climb when Porte was in control. Then Bonked and lost nothing to Contador etc. In fact he gained one minute. Why the hell did he attack at the base of the climb? It was ummmm almost, staged to look tired but not lose any time.

IMHO, he didn't look so hot riding along with the climbing specialists. They were gapping him before they put in the dig. Maybe he had some idea he was making time on his GC rivals BEFORE the whole snack thing started.

Strange does not really describe his performance on that last climb.
 
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, let's get this straight between Lance and Froome:

1. Had a disease - check.
2. Showed no GT credentials before transformation - check
3. Sean Yates on staff - check
4. Hired doctor known for doping - check
4b. Hired the same scientist to proclaim they were both clean - check
5. Team domestiques ripping legs off top contenders - check
6. Snarky comments - check

Fixed that for you.

That's a nice collection of circumstances that mean nothing coming from an anonymous forum. Why do you hate the British? Why do you hate Africa? Why do you hate hard working winners?

Nothing to see here.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
timbo25 said:
is Froome the fist example of pure gendoping?

628x471.jpg
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Visit site
Why are you criticising Grappe? :confused: What exactly is your problem with his comments? Which of the following conclusions do you think are wrong?

1. Froome's performances have been consistent since the 2011 Vuelta according to the power files selected and given to him by Team Sky.

2. Froome's power declines from 20 min efforts to 60 min which is expected.

3. Froome's aerobic power is close to the limits of known physiological science.

4. Froome's recovery between stages must be excellent as he is able to perform near his maximum consistently in a GT.

Seriously, what's your problem? He is most certainly correct.
 
BroDeal said:
I think I saw that arm in an alien autopsy video once.

Someone contact Hanger 18 and ask if there have been any escapes.

i can't believe i'm defending this, but that is really a product of a bad pic photoshopped to hell :mad:

people really need to learn that HDR is *not* their friend!
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Excellent US Postal fan impersonation.

This is where the nonsense kicks in from people who don't have a clue who they're talking to. I despise Armstrong with every ounce of my being, I was cynical right from the moment I saw Riis make everyone else look like club riders. I simply refuse to allow my past cynicism to envelope me and remove my balance on cycling. Of course people cheat, but the only smoke about Froome is from his performances, nothing more. If you want to ignore his unusual background and the parasite business, fine, why let the facts get in the way of a malign, bigoted point of view??

His figures have been put to the guy at L'Equipe, he thinks he's clean. Let's see what WADA say, but if they come back and reinforce that I can guarantee that you guys will not accept it, 100%. It's like a bloody lynch mob in here, pathetic.
 
Jul 9, 2013
6
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, let's get this straight between Lance and Froome:

1. Had a disease - check.
2. Showed no GT credentials before transformation - check
3. Sean Yates on staff - check
4. Hired doctor known for doping - check
5. Team domestiques ripping legs off top contenders - check
6. Snarky comments - check

Nice evidence bro
 
This has to be some of the stupidest logic I have ever seen in The Clinic: When Froome has the Tour well in hand and has no reason to to anything more than the minimum it excuses his alien performances from earlier in the Tour. How can people be so freaking gullible?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Given the sudden influx of Coggan posts the last few days, I'm starting to think that maybe Coggan was angling toward getting that Sky data. Guess Grappe tried harder.

Coggan was still angling for it this morning after he found out...claimed to be able to give a more credible view than Grappe...which is interesting considering he's never seen a set of data that he thought was suspicious in relation to doping...

Now that I think about it, Sky would be smart to give it to Coggan because then they could do a commercial where "2 out of 2 experts agree, Froome will keep your whites whiter!"
 
Oct 8, 2009
79
0
0
Visit site
ChewbaccaD said:
Truly, the effect is the irrelevant part of this. What I find galling is the show Sky puts on about how they are doing everything within the rules, can't question them because they're busting their *** 18 hours a day on their bikes motorpacing up climbs and eating skinless baked fish and dry pasta.

People who will cheat on small things cannot be trusted on anything, and those who proclaim their righteousness to the world and then show the world that they'll cheat when they need to are even worse.

Make that fish oil, olive oil and vegetable juice.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, let's get this straight between Lance and Froome:

1. Had a disease - check.
2. Showed no GT credentials before transformation - check
3. Sean Yates on staff - check
4. Hired doctor known for doping - check
5. Team domestiques ripping legs off top contenders - check
6. Snarky comments - check

The thing for me is that at least Armstrong had some major wins before going mutant. He won a WC and stages of the Tour and a classic. Froome was a marginal rider...of course, that is all because of those evil snails...:rolleyes:
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Coggan was still angling for it this morning after he found out...claimed to be able to give a more credible view than Grappe...which is interesting considering he's never seen a set of data that he thought was suspicious in relation to doping...

Now that I think about it, Sky would be smart to give it to Coggan because then they could do a commercial where "2 out of 2 experts agree, Froome will keep your whites whiter!"
tighty whities + Froome is a visual i really didn't need... still, lol, on your 2 out of two.