Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 40 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
spalco said:
And now? Forum consensus seems to have forgiven him.
I don't know about "forgiven", it's not like he killed people.

But - he's been banned and has returned. When folks have paid a price, you find the 'anger' level gets turned down a notch or 10. The opposite has occurred with Sky - there has been no resolution and there are endless skydiots out there who keep rabidly defending Sky (which really helps increase the post count :D)
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,112
0
0
thehog said:
And gained considerable power.
Let's wait and see, and hope. As you said, the knees may not cope with all that extra power. Especially if the marginal cadence gain has been marginally exceeded by marginal power gains due to weight loss.
 
Mar 29, 2011
4,283
0
0
airstream said:
I don't whine, I'm just surprise. It probably even makes me to support them
Ripper said:
Nah, you whine.
I asked to explain double standarts in attitude to the riders. You failed to do it. Or sorry, probably you didn't try. However, come le Tour and you or similar posters will start posting something like 'Contador, do them in'. And there is a huge double game in such words.
 
Mar 29, 2011
4,283
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
The difference though is other teams dont scream from the top of the mountains how clean they are. In other words, by doing this they - and Garmin - claim to be clean and all the others that do not scream from the top of the mountain are dirty.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1180944/2/index.htm
''From 1990 to 2000, Armstrong was tested more than two dozen times by Catlin's UCLA lab, according to Catlin's estimate. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn't recover a total of five of the cyclist's test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, "The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low." The letter went on to detail the cyclist's testosterone-epitestosterone results from 1991 to 1998, with one missing season: 1997, the only year during that span in which Armstrong didn't compete. Three results stand out: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.''
excuse me, I understand you very bad. You criticize Armstrong for using doping in the 90's. when 100% of world cup riders used EPO, (some of them used EPO so much that as Tyler wrote, their hc hit 60-65 and they had to wake up in the night and seat on stationary bike, pedal in order not to die from weak puls)? You criticize him so using doping in the 2000's
when no rider could get spot in top-30 without doping?

Sorry, but your thoughts remind me some primitive communal system (slaves and people of quality from generation to generation). According to you any rider is born with a certain genetics which predetermines his cycling speciality subsequently. I strongly disagree with that. In sport like in any other sphere people build themselves by their own. If a rider couldn't show himself like a GT contender until 25-27 years, it can say about very different things. Not only about absence of talent. And it works for any cycling profiles. Pettacchi became an elite sprinter at 28 or 29. Before he was nobody. Just a flat gregario. Rodriguez had nothing but Vuelta maglia carmesí (for which nobody fighted) until 28. There are a few other examples like these.
 
airstream said:
excuse me, I understand you very bad. You criticize Armstrong for using doping in the 90's. when 100% of world cup riders used EPO, (some of them used EPO so much that as Tyler wrote, their hc hit 60-65 and they had to wake up in the night and seat on stationary bike, pedal in order not to die from weak puls)? You criticize him so using doping in the 2000's
when no rider could get spot in top-30 without doping?

Sorry, but your thoughts remind me some primitive communal system (slaves and people of quality from generation to generation). According to you any rider is born with a certain genetics which predetermines his cycling speciality subsequently. I strongly disagree with that. In sport like in any other sphere people build themselves by their own. If a rider couldn't show himself like a GT contender until 25-27 years, it can say about very different things. Not only about absence of talent. And it works for any cycling profiles. Pettacchi became an elite sprinter at 28 or 29. Before he was nobody. Just a flat gregario. Rodriguez had nothing but Vuelta maglia carmesí (for which nobody fighted) until 28. There are a few other examples like these.
Seriously. Lay off the cheap vodka. You literally make no sense.
 
May 28, 2012
2,284
0
0
A primitive communal system in the sense of a layered society, where there's no physical interaction between different classes, and where you can't work your way up the social ladder? Although a bit far-fetched, it could make some sense.

For example, a rider who's at first regarded as a possible Pro Conti rider, who suddenly becomes the top WT cyclist at relatively old age does certainly turn some heads in the 'primitive' world of cycling.
 
airstream said:
I asked to explain double standarts in attitude to the riders. You failed to do it. Or sorry, probably you didn't try. However, come le Tour and you or similar posters will start posting something like 'Contador, do them in'. And there is a huge double game in such words.
Well you're correct in that I didn't try. But I have pointed out that others have given you some feedback on your perceptions. That, and read some of the thread ... lots of explanations as to why the attitude against Sky.

Nice try ... you obviously have no idea about my posting history. I've been pretty against certain riders when things were getting silly. Conti ... when he was floridly doping and fighting the case against him, I was pretty incensed. He's done his time. So next time do me the favour of having some idea about what you are f*cking talking about before making random comments about me ... it makes you look like a 5 year old troll or an idiot.

Finally - What team claims washing hands and using science has made a whole bunch of them winners and riding the whole peloton off their wheels last year? Oh ya, that was Sky. :rolleyes: ;)

As for Froome, I think he's a nice guy. Nothing against him whatsoever.
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
What I have always wondered on the bilharzia thingie is this:
Froome grows up in Kenya, untill at least 14 years old when his parents move to South Africa, where he trains with the great David Kinjah ''in the rural highlands north of Nairobi''. Yet, never catches the parasite.

Then, as an adult of 25 years, one year before his contract is due, in prime health we may assume, he goes on a safari in Kenya, hugging elephants et all, catches bilharzia, is cured and within a year he is the best climber and the third best TT'er of the world.

What are the odds for that?
Froome got bilharzia before that year, and it is not sure that was in Kenya. Some estudies said he got bilharzia since 2008.
Bilharzia is not so common as to catch it just to be living there, but not so strange (a lot of people have in Africa) as to be very odd to get in a trip.
A ot of peopple in the world has the disease and they dont know it.
He was unlucky, of course, but luck and unluck are normal in life.
He has the parasit still in his system in 2013, but they can fight now againts him and it is not a problem.
 
Yes, clentadopucci has done his time. So has valverde. But they continue to act like they were innocent. That is the big difference. As far as I can tell their actions AND their words show no remorse or indicate accepting any change in their behavior. So I assume that they continue to pursue every possible cheating method at their disposal.

That is what makes them impossible to support.

The other element is that since we know they doped to achieve every known result in their career and - apparently - see nothing wrong with continuing their behavior, we simply have no idea how good they really are.

As far as we know they are no better than Chiappucci was. And there is no knowable data that can convince us otherwise.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Froome on the other hand has of course always been known as one of the greatest talents of his generation.
 
Aug 9, 2010
5,284
0
0
airstream said:
argumentation?
You seem to do a fine job of that so please go for it :)

In my opinion he is not displayed a 'leader' personality

He has not been a consistent talent over a period of time
 
Mar 29, 2011
4,283
0
0
'Consistent talents' are entitled to dope as much as they want, unlike intruders like Froome and Wiggins, who dared to interfere these consistent talents to win. Bravissimo.
 
Taxus4a said:
Froome got bilharzia before that year, and it is not sure that was in Kenya. Some estudies said he got bilharzia since 2008.
Bilharzia is not so common as to catch it just to be living there, but not so strange (a lot of people have in Africa) as to be very odd to get in a trip.
A ot of peopple in the world has the disease and they dont know it.
He was unlucky, of course, but luck and unluck are normal in life.
He has the parasit still in his system in 2013, but they can fight now againts him and it is not a problem.
Froome was so unlucky his badzhilla would hit at opportune times and then magically clear up just prior to GTs.

Very unlucky. Just like his bio passport data. I'm sure it looks like a seismograph on the san andreas fault line.

 
May 25, 2010
189
0
0
thehog said:
Froome was so unlucky his badzhilla would hit at opportune times and then magically clear up just prior to GTs.

Very unlucky. Just like his bio passport data. I'm sure it looks like a seismograph on the san andreas fault line.

You're sure? Really? Love it, no really, comedy gold.
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
the sceptic said:
Froome on the other hand has of course always been known as one of the greatest talents of his generation.
One of them, he showed that at Giro delle Regione amongs other races, but mainly in test. yes.

But he makes the difference with his mind, not only in his big engine.
 
Aug 12, 2012
3,991
0
0
thehog said:
Froome was so unlucky his badzhilla would hit at opportune times and then magically clear up just prior to GTs.
ein?? :confused:

do you meant after he start to mend it?
he had problems after his firts time free just in next spring.
Y/es, in that case he has been lucky...do you think he deserves a more unlike career? :confused:
Is it normal a man always have bad luck?? :eek:
 
Taxus4a said:
One of them, he showed that at Giro delle Regione amongs other races, but mainly in test. yes.

But he makes the difference with his mind, not only in his big engine.
You can go from grupetto to GT winner with your mind?

What about the Atomic Jock Race? That was a big victory.
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
thehog said:
You can go from grupetto to GT winner with your mind?

What about the Atomic Jock Race? That was a big victory.
According to this guy you can.

"The simple truth is that we outwork everyone. But when you perform at a higher level in a race, you get questions about doping."
"We are completely innocent. We run a very clean and professional team that has been singled out due to our success …
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY