Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[red_flanders]

His 'if you want something bad enough you'll find a way to make it happen quote' just doesn't sit right with me. He has never really acknowledged the fact that he burst onto the scene either.

Gotcha, thanks!

 

[stutue]

His 'if you want something bad enough you'll find a way to make it happen quote' just doesn't sit right with me. He has never really acknowledged the fact that he burst onto the scene either.

That's probably because he's not part of your narrative

 

[DirtyWorks]

That's probably because he's not part of your narrative

So, just ignore the fact his cycling greatness suddenly appears.

We're also supposed to ignore the fact sudden gains in power is completely contrary to the history of grand tour winners pre-EPO.

SundayRider, this idea that Froome could transform from good international rider to great with some hours of special work just does not work. Competitive cycling is an old-enough sport we have enough data that shows that it doesn't work like that.

I have no problem with XYZ days/hours leading to relative mastery. For example, faster local guy.

 

[stutue]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

SundayRider is expecting answers from Froome, in a conversation that Froome is not part of.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Froome Positive after Romandie win


Talk about a bad headline phrasing from BEIN sports....

 

[JimmyFingers]

Lol........

 

[The Hitch]

Right. Money.

Why was Contador protected. Money.

When did Sky start winning? Right before the London Olympics. Hmmmm.

Why was Andre Aggasi protected in tennis. Money.

Thankfully he Contador and Armstrong are the only 3 athletes who would ever be protected.

Thank god cycling and all the other sports lucked out and has recently only had clean winners.

 

[The Hitch]

That's not what I'm saying at all.

SundayRider is expecting answers from Froome, in a conversation that Froome is not part of.

Well Froome doesn't seem to have a problem talking about doping when he says things "i prove its clean by winning lots".

But away from the nonesence, the tough questions he doesn't want to answer.

Funny that.

 

[stutue]

Well Froome doesn't seem to have a problem talking about doping when he says things "i prove its clean by winning lots".

But away from the nonesence, the tough questions he doesn't want to answer.

Funny that.

Oh I agree the 'winning lots' stuff is bizarre, and he is shifty as hell.

However, if he was a clean rider what would his answers look like?

I suspect they'd sound equally unconvincing.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh I agree the 'winning lots' stuff is bizarre, and he is shifty as hell.

However, if he was a clean rider what would his answers look like?

I suspect they'd sound equally unconvincing.

His answers would be transparent, his Vo2max he would tell us, he would release his numbers at Barloworld, his numbers pre Vuelta'11, that his now doc at Sky, Farrell, says are normal for Froome and point to a rider's normal progression.....

It is easy to convince when everything is at it should be and you just lay it out openly and honestly. The opposite of the Sky obfuscation and Froome's silence over his numbers!

His story about Bilharzia has been told so many different ways for example. If it was an honest story there would be only 1 version, not many versions.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The original question is based on exploring the narrative that Froome is protected which has allowed him to dope massively and become the chosen one. So if that's true then why Froome and not, say, Thomas.

If you are trying to come up with some kind of logical explanation it's not possible.

AND based on the teeeeny tiny bits of information we have is even more impossible.

 

[BYOP88]

His answers would be transparent, his Vo2max he would tell us, he would release his numbers at Barloworld, his numbers pre Vuelta'11, that his now doc at Sky, Farrell, says are normal for Froome and point to a rider's normal progression.....

It is easy to convince when everything is at it should be and you just lay it out openly and honestly. The opposite of the Sky obfuscation and Froome's silence over his numbers!

His story about Bilharzia has been told so many different ways for example. If it was an honest story there would be only 1 version, not many versions.

Find out all these answers and many more in the forthcoming book!!

 

[veganrob]

Find out all these answers and many more in the forthcoming book!!

Or most likely not

 

[Benotti69]

Find out all these answers and many more in the forthcoming book!!

It will be funny, wonder what Walsh will use to justify Froome now that the nutella ban, pineapple juice, yellow butterflies etc have all been used.

Maybe Froome was adopted by an ancient African tribe and they performed Voodoo on all his opponents

 

[BYOP88]

It will be funny, wonder what Walsh will use to justify Froome now that the nutella ban, pineapple juice, yellow butterflies etc have all been used.

Maybe Froome was adopted by an ancient African tribe and they performed Voodoo on all his opponents

I'm hoping Walsh tells us about the brand new marginal gain:

Unicorn semen for sunblock.

 

[stutue]

Milked by your own fair hand, I daresay.

 

[Benotti69]

I'm hoping Walsh tells us about the brand new marginal gain:

Unicorn semen for sunblock.

The Skyfans will buy that.............

 

[BYOP88]

Milked by your own fair hand, I daresay.

Only if I get there before you've milked it dry.

 

[The Hitch]

Oh I agree the 'winning lots' stuff is bizarre, and he is shifty as hell.

However, if he was a clean rider what would his answers look like?

I suspect they'd sound equally unconvincing.

Its highly unlikely that a clean rider who overnight transformed from outside world 500 to physiologically greatest talent in history, would take Armstrong's - show me a positive test or **** off attitude.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sure, because he didn't want to miss out on a sprint at the end

Uh no

“Spilak was going well and Froomey waited a bit so they could ride together. He has the jersey now so Katusha are likely to defend the lead
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-sets-up-overall-victory-at-the-tour-de-romandie

 

[Hawkwood]

His story about Bilharzia has been told so many different ways for example. If it was an honest story there would be only 1 version, not many versions.

Why, I don't get your logic? I've had illnesses where the story changed from doctor to doctor, specialist to specialist. A very close relative had an illness that was diagnosed variously from, this is routine and can easily be treated, to this is unusual and is awkward to treat, to this is terminal, it was the same illness all the time. Why should there just be one version, this only makes sense in a very simple world?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Why, I don't get your logic? I've had illnesses where the story changed from doctor to doctor, specialist to specialist. A very close relative had an illness that was diagnosed variously from, this is routine and can easily be treated, to this is unusual and is awkward to treat, to this is terminal, it was the same illness all the time. Why should there just be one version, this only makes sense in a very simple world?

You clearly didn't follow the stories very closely, as you'd know the story that changes is not "how bad is this" or "how can this be healed", but rather, "How I discovered I had bilharzia".

From a male doctor doing a blood test, or was it a female, or was it a coach reading my diary. Have I had it for 3 years or 5? Did it "come back" after a treatment that appears to work for 99% of the world, despite the fact that if I had it bad enough that it required multiple treatments, I should have been evacuating blood in the little boy's room? Did someone tell me after my brother found out he was "riddled with it", or did I ask someone to do a blood test to work out why I was tired all the time?

etc.

 

[The Hitch]

Uh no

Check mate.

 

[The Hitch]

Why, I don't get your logic? I've had illnesses where the story changed from doctor to doctor, specialist to specialist. A very close relative had an illness that was diagnosed variously from, this is routine and can easily be treated, to this is unusual and is awkward to treat, to this is terminal, it was the same illness all the time. Why should there just be one version, this only makes sense in a very simple world?

You clearly have not read up on the arguments regarding Froome's bilharzia.

Froome isn't giving different versions of how it works. On that he is actually quite consistent. I mean it did change from - it lasts forever, to - I am now cured, which is a bit of a big change, but both were consistent in their inconsistency with scientific canon.

What changes about Froome's story are simple dates.

I can't work with your relative analogy since your relative is a lot closer to you and likely more worthy of your trust than a pro cyclist, but if someone told you one day told you about an important event in their lives and the setting is California in May, and a few weeks later you hear them telling the same story to someone else, only this time they say it happened in Iceland and it was February, you wouldn't be a little suspicious?

 

[stutue]

Only if I get there before you've milked it dry.

Ha ha ha.. God, I'd never have cracked that joke if I'd realised you'd come back with such a devastatingly witty retort.

You take my joke and make it funnier! I didn't see that coming!!!!!

Check mate.

It was a joke. Hence the smiley. So not so much check mate as...err...never mind.