Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Ripper]

Well, he's not there yet. Only one second over Martin and with a hill in the middle of the TT.

Sounds like the kind of excuse made up for Bertie a few years back.

 

[martinvickers]

Can he fall on the cobbles this year & have to make up 6 minutes on Contador in the mountains. I hope. FFRetard.

Careful now, Hoggie. That's perilously close to wishing physical harm on a rider, and that's a no-no in here, however we might feel in private.

 

[the sceptic]

This is a doping thread, right? So your post has to be taken in the context of doping.

Why would you favour an officially proven doper over somebody merely unofficially suspected?

So we are back "to never tested positive"? what is this, 2001?

 

[thehog]

Careful now, Hoggie. That's perilously close to wishing physical harm on a rider, and that's a no-no in here, however we might feel in private.

From he who says "I'm done for" careful now indeed.

Take it with the jest it was sprinkled with and don't make an issue out of nothing.

He's so thin these days he very likely to fall or break of those cobbles. Will be a factor.

 

[stutue]

So we are back "to never tested positive"? what is this, 2001?

That's a poor attempt at deflection. Just answer the question.

Why are you favouring an officially proven and sanctioned doper over somebody who is merely suspected?

Why choose a doper?

 

[doperhopper]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigcog
I find Contadore far more ridiculous to watch. When on "top form " he does multiple attacks whilst they are riding at near peak power outputs until he's dropped everyone - that's why he gets so much love from fans because he's so exciting to watch. Froome does one or two attacks, gets a gap and then TT's to the finish.


That is because Froome's attacks are more deadly. There is no need to attack again.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

exactly fulfilling the famous Brailsford's prophecy that "we're not going to have these entertaining repeated attacks of the past era" (though this was meant as a justification of the Wiggo's diesel winning style)

 

[Benotti69]

That's a poor attempt at deflection. Just answer the question.

Why are you favouring an officially proven and sanctioned doper over somebody who is merely suspected?

Why choose a doper?

Why choose Froome? If he is not doping then we should all get some badzilla.....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

That's a poor attempt at deflection. Just answer the question.

Why are you favouring an officially proven and sanctioned doper over somebody who is merely suspected?

Why choose a doper?

Go searching for "Contador" in the Sky / Wiggins / Froome et al threads and look at who responds to these sorts of "I hope Contador wins" posts.

Not saying that's why, but it's guaranteed to hook at least one.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I had some initial hope that Contador might have a chance, but not anymore really. Lets face it, Dawg is far from 100% right now, and he is already toying with the field.

This is a doping thread, right? So your post has to be taken in the context of doping.

Why would you favour an officially proven doper over somebody merely unofficially suspected?

So we are back "to never tested positive"? what is this, 2001?

No, we are in the (assuming everybody is doping) "your doper is worse than mine" area.

Just be honest: You declare yourself being a fanboy that´s angry someone else is going to win.

 

[stutue]

Go searching for "Contador" in the Sky / Wiggins / Froome et al threads and look at who responds to these sorts of "I hope Contador wins" posts.

Not saying that's why, but it's guaranteed to hook at least one.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, then let me just assure you that I wouldn't tar you or a number of others posting here with Sceptic's brush

Equally, you'll notice that I'm very selective about which arguments I critique because some of them are quite reasonable and deserve an airing.

 

[sniper]

Why would you favour an officially proven doper over somebody merely unofficially suspected?

If there was a small window of opportunity for cycling in the wake of the USADA action against USPS, it was Wiggins, Froome and Sky, not Contador, who slammed that window shut.

 

[RichieTheBest]

I had some initial hope that Contador might have a chance, but not anymore really. Lets face it, Dawg is far from 100% right now, and he is already toying with the field.

i dont get your such a big emotional involvement. contador took two convincing wt victories looking even more comfortable at least at the group stages than froome who allegedly 'was playing with the field'. in addition theres no ground to consider Contador to be closer to his peak than froome at this stage of the season.

on stage 3 i personally saw the rider desperately struggling to take 1 min

 

[Ripper]

i dont get your such a big emotional involvement. contador took two convincing wt victories looking even more comfortable at least at the group stages than froome who allegedly 'was playing with the field'. in addition theres no ground to consider Contador to be closer to his peak than froome at this stage of the season.

on stage 3 i personally saw the rider desperately struggling to take 1 min

Does anyone really see Bertie or Froome as one being more 'clean'? I just wonder ...

 

[stutue]

If there was a small window of opportunity for cycling in the wake of the USADA action against USPS, it was Wiggins, Froome and Sky, not Contador, who slammed that window shut.

....or indeed whoever else would have won if it hadn't been W&F.

besides its got nothing to do with my post.

I want to know why The Sceptic wants a known proven doper to win over somebody else who may be a doper but isn't proven.

After all, nobody made Sceptic choose a doper. He did it all by himself. Why would anybody want a proven doper to win?

Maybe Sceptic loves doping.

 

[stutue]

Does anyone really see Bertie or Froome as one being more 'clean'? I just wonder ...

That's not the point. I'm not talking about perceptions.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

....or indeed whoever else would have won if it hadn't been W&F.

besides its got nothing to do with my post.

I want to know why The Sceptic wants a known proven doper to win over somebody else who may be a doper but isn't proven.

After all, nobody made Sceptic choose a doper. He did it all by himself. Why would anybody want a proven doper to win?

Maybe Sceptic loves doping.

Maybe he loved cancer back in the day too? Or doesn't believe in miracles?

 

[The Hitch]

Quote: Originally Posted by bigcog
I find Contadore far more ridiculous to watch. When on "top form " he does multiple attacks whilst they are riding at near peak power outputs until he's dropped everyone - that's why he gets so much love from fans because he's so exciting to watch. Froome does one or two attacks, gets a gap and then TT's to the finish.


That is because Froome's attacks are more deadly. There is no need to attack again.

I can't find that post, but that is exactly the type of ignorance Bailsford aims his BS at.

Why does Froome so often attack once whereas sometimes other riders attack 10 x? Because Froome is so strong he only needs to attack once.
Identical to Contador on Verbier or Armstrong on Alpe, or Sestrieres or Pantani on Alpe.

When do riders attack multiple times in a climb? when they cant drop their opponent. So they have to go again. eg Schleck on Tourmalet.

There's this myth that Contador or Pantani or Armstrong always attacks 50 x on a climb but its just selective memory based on highlight reels. When they had riders match them they attacked multiple times, just like Froome went multiple times in the last minute of Pena Cabarga when Cobo matched him. When Contador was as strong as Froome however he didn't attack 50x, he attacked once and just like Froome rode it to the finish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuS4glCoRqU The acceleration is about 30 seconds in. Its almost identical to that Froome 2013, 1 acceleration and goodbye everyone.

Or here is Contador on Arcalis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r45l4ndMZ_o
Again, 1 attack. None of that 50 attacks bull****, brailsford and trolls claim.

Actually Froome attacked, 3 or 4 times on Ventoux, though 2 were small accelerations not full out ones. Twice against Contador including the all time most ridiculous one, and then twice against Quintana. Sort of like Armstrong on Sestrieres actually. But hey, Froome is clean cos he only ever attacks once but everyone else is doping.

This bull**** argument belongs in Braisfraud's tabloids aimed at white van drivers, not in an educated cycling forum.

 

[stutue]

Maybe he loved cancer back in the day too? Or doesn't believe in miracles?

Maybe he's got a chimeric twin or just had a coupla whiskies

 

[the sceptic]

....or indeed whoever else would have won if it hadn't been W&F.

besides its got nothing to do with my post.

I want to know why The Sceptic wants a known proven doper to win over somebody else who may be a doper but isn't proven.

After all, nobody made Sceptic choose a doper. He did it all by himself. Why would anybody want a proven doper to win?

Maybe Sceptic loves doping.

Joachim, I missed you.

Do not be alarmed. The clean Horner is my favourite rider.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

I don't think that's silly at all. Riis was a far better rider throughout his career than Froome. I think people forget (or weren't around at the time).

I've never seen transformations like Froome or Wiggins. They're an order of magnitude more silly than Riis.

You probably weren't around before 1993 then....

 

[stutue]

Joachim, I missed you.

Do not be alarmed. The clean Horner is my favourite rider.

At least Rodriguez isn't a proven doper

Still no answer yet, I see.

 

[doperhopper]

I had some initial hope that Contador might have a chance, but not anymore really. Lets face it, Dawg is far from 100% right now, and he is already toying with the field.

it looked like Vroomie was motoring away in a controlled way, just enough to win and not to look too ridiculous... so Spilak was actually a rather welcome companion and Sky radio master did a great job to hold Vroomie'e ego not to run away from S. (remember Ventoux - ridiculous 120rpm sitting attack, then the bell rings, CF eases the tempo while on an extensive radio conversation)

 

[stutue]

Yes. It went something like this:

"Slow down Chris, you are making it look too easy"

...and of course that radio conversation took place on a secret communications system that nobody with a £40 scanner from Maplin could monitor


Oh no.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

At least Rodriguez isn't a proven doper

Which is a miracle in itself honestly

 

[the sceptic]

At least Rodriguez isn't a proven doper

Still no answer yet, I see.

Everyone cheers for dopers. I have no problem with doing it. The difference is that some people like to live in a fairytale land where they imagine their dopers are cleans.