Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[LaFlorecita]

Thanks for that.
I dont get the first two lines though.
who,s "he" and who showed signs of weakness?

Sir Bradley in 2012

 

[sniper]

Sir Bradley in 2012

Ah, but of course. Thanks flo

 

[red_flanders]

This.

I give him the benefit of the doubt until further evidence emerges and reserve the right to change my mind if it does.

YMMV

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when someone explains to me how a human could transform from middle-pack rider to worldbeater clean.

No one has ever been able to explain this.

 

[red_flanders]

Eh ??

A discussion between what is humanly possible and what Froome is capable of would be very similar if Froome were clean, since he would be one of those guys pushing what is humanly possible.

Eh?

Why wasn't he even remotely coming close to finding the limits of human potential for the first several years of his career? He wan't even going to get a pro contract. Not what you see from guys pushing the bounds of human potential. Generally.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think he'd have significantly improved his time by doing nothing more than changing to a modern wheelset.

It sure is convenient of you to forget that the rest of the peloton is riding in the same races with modern wheelsets.

 

[Benotti69]

Froome wasn't picked for the 2011 Vuelta team! He only got a place on the team because Norhaug got ill. Then Sky didn't even expect him to finish the race.

Clean! CLEAN! What planet are people on when the Sky didn't think he was good enough to pick in the 1st place and then when they had no choice but to pick him didn't expect him to finish the race!

 

[the sceptic]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when someone explains to me how a human could transform from middle-pack rider to worldbeater clean.

No one has ever been able to explain this.

Yes, but you havent explained how he is doping either! (just kidding)

I would like Froome defenders to imagine how good Froome would be if he got put on the same doping program as Lance.

Lets say this would give him a 10% boost, which would mean something like 3-5 minutes on every MTF. Since we already know that Froome is as good if not better than Lance cleans, it means he would drop him like a stone on every MTF and win the tour by something like 20 minutes.

Does that sound plausible to anyone?

 

[BYOP88]

Froome wasn't picked for the 2011 Vuelta team! He only got a place on the team because Norhaug got ill. Then Sky didn't even expect him to finish the race.

Clean! CLEAN! What planet are people on when the Sky didn't think he was good enough to pick in the 1st place and then when they had no choice but to pick him didn't expect him to finish the race!

I wonder if Nordhaug thinks 'that could've been me'

 

[DirtyWorks]

re Bahamontes and equipment improvements, a scientist writes



Ross Tucker

FWIW from the same article he estimates Froome's mutant Ax3 VAM at 1715.

What year is this again? It feels like 2004.

This equipment argument has risen from the dead once more. It died for a reason. It turns out it *was* doping that lead to numerous podiums and countless record-breaking climbing tests.

 

[Digger]

What I want to know is how the Froome defenders think he's able to beat these doped riders, whilst clean...imagine what he'd win by if everyone was clean...about three or four hours...is he that much of a freak that he's not alone better than these guys, but better than them when they dope...I mean Jesus....

 

[deValtos]

Eh?

Why wasn't he even remotely coming close to finding the limits of human potential for the first several years of his career? He wan't even going to get a pro contract. Not what you see from guys pushing the bounds of human potential. Generally.

Wait what ? I get the feeling you're responding to a completely different point.

My original point was the discussion of what is humanly possible and what Froome is capable of are different if Froome doped but similar if he's clean. You said they weren't.

If he's clean, then he's pushing the limits of whats humanly possible right now.

If he's doped then he's probably not.

The fact that he wasn't pushing the limits of human potential in the first part of his career is completely irrelevant to that, I don't know what you're arguing against.

 

[TailWindHome]

It sure is convenient of you to forget that the rest of the peloton is riding in the same races with modern wheelsets.

I think you may have lost the thread of the conversation there.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Yes, but you havent explained how he is doping either! (just kidding)

I would like Froome defenders to imagine how good Froome would be if he got put on the same doping program as Lance.

Lets say this would give him a 10% boost, which would mean something like 3-5 minutes on every MTF. Since we already know that Froome is as good if not better than Lance cleans, it means he would drop him like a stone on every MTF and win the tour by something like 20 minutes.

Does that sound plausible to anyone?

I've seen that race!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og76z4kGMQU
(start about 10 minutes in. Things get ridiculous by minute 12.)

 

[Benotti69]

Wait what ? I get the feeling you're responding to a completely different point.

My original point was the discussion of what is humanly possible and what Froome is capable of are different if Froome doped but similar if he's clean. You said they weren't.

If he's clean, then he's pushing the limits of whats humanly possible right now.

If he's doped then he's probably not.

The fact that he wasn't pushing the limits of human potential in the first part of his career is completely irrelevant to that, I don't know what you're arguing against.

Dopers dont stop pushing the limits of their natural ability and rely on the dope.

Dopers train hard and with the dope it allows them to train harder. THese guys are not doping and going for a spin to the coffee shop.

Froome had the talent to be a pro. But not the talent to win GTs.

 

[GuyIncognito]

I've seen that race!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og76z4kGMQU
(start about 10 minutes in. Things get ridiculous by minute 12.)

...and that's your reaction to a stage won by not even 50 seconds. Imagine your reaction to Froome winning by 5 minutes

 

[Ventoux Boar]

What year is this again? It feels like 2004.

This equipment argument has risen from the dead once more. It died for a reason. It turns out it *was* doping that lead to numerous podiums and countless record-breaking climbing tests.

Go back a few posts. It was in reference to ScienceIsCool's claim that there had been no material equipment (or other) improvements since the Bahamontes era. In fact if you'd read the quote I posted you'll have noted that it states recent improvements offer neglible performance enhancements by comparison.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...and that's your reaction to a stage won by not even 50 seconds. Imagine your reaction to Froome winning by 5 minutes

My favorite part is the commentators, "he just pushed on the pedals a little .... rode them off his wheel." He looks as if he's "the fast guy" at the local cafe run. 2012/13 was almost that ridiculous.

 

[rhubroma]

Are you serious bro? You going to take a quote out of context and throw a huge strawman at me? I said nothing at all like this, did I? Where do you even get this from? Its bizarre. Hoggo threw up a British stereotype of aggressive hooligan against a knowledgeable Italian and I challenged that stereotype, nothing more. All the white noise you just spewed out was all in your own head, not mine.

I'm really very tired of being completely miss-represented in my motives, my support, my personality. Stop speaking for me.

I was merely responding to your commentary. If you are tired of being completely mis-represented, then express yourself accordingly.

Your defensive position, however, belies a guilty conscience.

 

[sniper]

Yes, but you havent explained how he is doping either! (just kidding)

I would like Froome defenders to imagine how good Froome would be if he got put on the same doping program as Lance.

Lets say this would give him a 10% boost, which would mean something like 3-5 minutes on every MTF. Since we already know that Froome is as good if not better than Lance cleans, it means he would drop him like a stone on every MTF and win the tour by something like 20 minutes.

Does that sound plausible to anyone?

nice

I've seen that race!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og76z4kGMQU
(start about 10 minutes in. Things get ridiculous by minute 12.)

good grief, what a freak show.
riis sure was breathing hard, must have been clean.

anyway, a pioneer riis was.
first to hit 60 hematocrit
first clear example of donkey to racehorse. (Although there are probably other candidates for that title)
Also first to introduce confessions of the type "i doped alone, nobody helped me, i think i can still do alot for the sport", etc.

 

[deValtos]

Dopers dont stop pushing the limits of their natural ability and rely on the dope.

Dopers train hard and with the dope it allows them to train harder. THese guys are not doping and going for a spin to the coffee shop.

Froome had the talent to be a pro. But not the talent to win GTs.

So wait, you think Froome is pushing the limits of human ability and doping

Because that's what the conversation was about, human ability (limits), not Froome's natural ability.

It's also why I used the word probably in my previous post ...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Go back a few posts. It was in reference to ScienceIsCool's claim that there had been no material equipment (or other) improvements since the Bahamontes era. In fact if you'd read the quote I posted you'll have noted that it states recent improvements offer neglible performance enhancements by comparison.

John's point is valid. Yes, the equipment has gotten lighter. But that's nothing compared to oxygen vector doping.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

What I want to know is how the Froome defenders think he's able to beat these doped riders, whilst clean...imagine what he'd win by if everyone was clean...about three or four hours...is he that much of a freak that he's not alone better than these guys, but better than them when they dope...I mean Jesus....

Why do you ignore the fact that he doesn't make the top 50 all time for ascents of Alpe D'Huez? Or that his supposedly most mutant performance on Ax3 was well below peak climbing performances by VAM.

 

[the sceptic]

I found this thread when I was googling around, pretty interesting read about some guy juicing to try to become a pro.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/271814/my-experience-with-drugs-and-blood-doping

I also used EPO for 4 months 4000 iu's injected sub Q in the lower belly fat once a week to build, and then 1000 a week to hold. 4000iu's will bring your hematocrit up 1% a week.
I went up to 54% but even at 50%, the legal limit in the pro ranks , my performance was unreal.
My sustainable power output went from 350 to 420 in three months!!! That's a 20% gain!!!

 

[Ventoux Boar]

John's point is valid. Yes, the equipment has gotten lighter. But that's nothing compared to oxygen vector doping.

Well who said it was comparable? John said (in terms) that Bahamontes wouldn't have gone faster on modern kit. That's ludicrous. But it's helpful to see the strength of your tribal bond.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Well who said it was comparable? John said (in terms) that Bahamontes wouldn't have gone faster on modern kit. That's ludicrous. But it's helpful to see the strength of your tribal bond.

I've never said that in any terms. Retract or I report your post to the mods.

John Swanson