Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 62 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Cyivel said:
Going by Hog's other picture could end up like this

we had a brilliant thread either on DailyPeloton or Cycling Forums on Wiggins i think, and his spectacular failures.

BroDeal, Chewie, help me out here. Cycling Forums was not it?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Cycle Chic said:


How much does Froome look like TINTIN ??!!!!
rebellin?

and froome?

chimera or doppelganger.

chimeras come in handy when you wanna blood dope. recommended by tyler and tugboat

oh, haven parchinski too
 
Did anyone catch clentadopucci shaking his head as froome sprinted away from Busche and him at the end of stage 5.

Reminded me of pantani just shaking his head as Armstrong dropped him on hautacam in 2000.

Reminded me in sooooo many ways.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
No, a rider will dope to prepare for the tour
to brag about that in the interview in the era when a half second turn of the head and look at the waterfall is the reason to accuse of doping. True. It's so logical
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Big Doopie said:
Did anyone catch clentadopucci shaking his head as froome sprinted away from Busche and him at the end of stage 5.

Reminded me of pantani just shaking his head as Armstrong dropped him on hautacam in 2000.

Reminded me in sooooo many ways.
It was when Indurain dropped Pantani like a stone, with Leblanc, in 1994 BD. Guess Indurain was a little bit upset Pantani made him look like a fool in the Giro.

Nevertheless, la Madone is one of Ferrari's climbs. If 32 minutes is true, he could be having the Wiggums jokes of course, you never know with those Sky enigma's, he would be 30 seconds of Toni Romingers time in 1996. Good to see clean riders can do this nowadays.
http://inrng.com/2013/01/roads-to-ride-col-de-la-madone/

We should ask Vaughters what scientific approach Danielson used to get to his time of 30.24
 
thehog said:
No. It's a bad dream. Can't be true. No. Not another biography!

I guess they got the title right. Remarkable indeed.

http://www.birlinn.co.uk/Va-Va-Froome.html

Huh. Modern day biography writing is weird to say the least. Justin Bieber has 20 biographies, Cav has a few, wiggo has a few, and now Froome? I could write Froome's biography in 2 sentences. I remember the days when after a long career, and an interesting life, one could get a biography. Not anymore. I guess it's an anglo thing. I mean I am still waiting for the first Alberto biography and I guess I'll have to wait another 5 years.
 
Big Doopie said:
Did anyone catch clentadopucci shaking his head as froome sprinted away from Busche and him at the end of stage 5.

Reminded me of pantani just shaking his head as Armstrong dropped him on hautacam in 2000.

Reminded me in sooooo many ways.
Who is your favorite rider? I bet 10$ it isn't Alberto.
 
Big Doopie said:
Did anyone catch clentadopucci shaking his head as froome sprinted away from Busche and him at the end of stage 5.

Reminded me of pantani just shaking his head as Armstrong dropped him on hautacam in 2000.

Reminded me in sooooo many ways.
absolutely. Basso's comments during last year's tour were telling too.

There are very few secrets in the pro peloton. The top dogs knows the game very well.

Fans are learning too.
 
Big Doopie said:
Did anyone catch clentadopucci shaking his head as froome sprinted away from Busche and him at the end of stage 5.

Reminded me of pantani just shaking his head as Armstrong dropped him on hautacam in 2000.

Reminded me in sooooo many ways.
I interpreted as him wishing he'd had a bigger beef sandwich for his breakfast.

Any convicted doper attempting to go clean is going to under-perform from what he could do before, assuming any juice still being taken is diluted.

Maybe, just maybe, that is pretty much Contador's natural ability in his early 30s.

Froome, like in Tirreno, saved *all* of his 'in the red' effort for the last km or so.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
It was when Indurain dropped Pantani like a stone, with Leblanc, in 1994 BD. Guess Indurain was a little bit upset Pantani made him look like a fool...
fgl, that may have happened too.

But check out 2000 hautacam if you can bare it. Zulle Armstrong and pantani attack. Zulle drops back but pantani hangs on. And then cracks. Looks down at his power meter and shakes his head.
 
thehog said:
No. It's a bad dream. Can't be true. No. Not another biography!

I guess they got the title right. Remarkable indeed.

http://www.birlinn.co.uk/Va-Va-Froome.html

Needs to be "Resistible" rather than "Remarkable", in reference to Brecht's "Der Aufhaltsame Ansteig des Arturo Ui" (translated as "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui"). It's a farce about gangsters.

Well, that and it's a mockery of the Nazis, which is perhaps not so appropriate. Also, Arturo's rise to prominence is much more like Wiggins' - planned out and opportunistic, not just thinking one day "you know what, I feel like monopolising the whole industry" and doing so just a day later.

I've stopped watching races with Froome in the start list. It's just not worth my time and effort. And then there's inevitably an argument in the Clinic, and people ignore just how unlikely the amount of stars aligning that is required would be, and we rinse and repeat.

I've made countless posts in this and other related threads regarding my stance on the matter. Plenty that I'm happy with, others that I'm not so happy with. Why do his fans need to go through pretending the 2008 Tour justified the transformation once more? Why do his detractors need to mock his 2009 Giro sidewinding or his 2010 Giro DQ again? It's a perpetual cycle, and each and every time he does it, we step further away from the time when he rose to prominence from obscurity at a level far greater than that of Riis, Mosquera, Kohl, Pérez, Nozal and so on. The nearest transformation we have to that of Froome is Wiggins, but Wiggins at least has the track focus justification to fall back on. Do we really need to discuss the characteristics of bilharzia once more just to conclude yet again that while it is quite likely Froome would be at greater risk than the rest of the péloton of contracting the disease and that its attacking of the red blood cells would clearly affect his cycling, it also is a disease which can be used in convenient ways to mask doping as it renders a baseline figure useless and essentially gives Froome a biopassport carte blanche? Especially when we've seen a post of various interviews from before and after the transformation that contradict each other completely on what this illness was, when it was contracted and what it does (ie Froome stating in June 2011 that he just had some chest infection and nothing more, which comes after not one but two dates he later explained he had been diagnosed with bilharzia - December 2010 and May 2011 if I recall correctly)?

We have now seen two consecutive years of cycling completely and utterly dominated by one team, with an army of former nobodies who've transformed into a well-oiled machine. Some of which is reasonable, but a lot of which requires swallowing some pretty inconsistent stories riddled with holes, from guys who've told conflicting stories in the past, which makes them very difficult to believe, especially when there's so much suspicion around them and they don't do what they advertised they would (even if it's fair enough that they don't).

Lewis Hamilton was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix in 2009. There had been some incident with Jarno Trulli under the safety car. Hamilton told the press one story, and told the race stewards another. Trulli told both the same story. It is possible that both told the truth, and it is possible that both lied. But what's certain is that Hamilton lied, because the two stories were not consistent, and that's why he was the one punished when he was found to have been lying. And that's what I get with Sky. It is certain that Froome has lied about his bilharzia, because his discussions of it are not consistent. I have advised on many occasions that I believe he had/has the disease and it is responsible in a large part for his 2009-11 down time. But I also don't believe at all that it is the only reason for Froome going from utter nobody (he had been benefiting from the marginal gains for 18 months before the Vuelta 2011, and with the apparent improvement in technical skills and racing knowledge you would expect his results to at least stagnate in this period if the marginal gains theory is to be believed) to unstoppable behemoth capable of dropping GT winners and known dopers at will. I also find it incredibly suspicious that this transformation took place when his contract was due, and that it coincides with the rise of British cyclists, because he was at the back of the queue for doling out opportunities behind a bunch of British Cycling pet projects like Thomas, Kennaugh and Swift, yet suddenly he's vaulted waaaaaaay ahead of these guys that Brailsford has been nurturing for years.

But you know, he'll do the same next month, the forum will go into meltdown as it's inundated with July fans, both pro- and anti-Sky, and the merry go round will continue. The same f***ing points will be made, rebutted, remade and re-rebutted a thousand f***ing times, Froome will continue to be ludicrous, fans will continue to shriek "where's the evidence?!" as if the team go around planting clues for Hercule Poirot to pick up as he follows the Tour, while pointing out that Chris freaking Froome doing 5,99W/kg every single day for a calendar year is not superhuman thus is obviously clean, detractors will continue to compare him insultingly to Mosquera, Kohl, Riis or Pérez (and I mean insultingly to them, they all had a much better respective pre-transformation palmarès), and another season will go by with six whole months of tedious Sky domination followed by an equally tedious six month discussion of said tedious Sky domination.

I don't know why I follow this sport sometimes. And now, sometimes, I don't actually follow this sport. Races with Froome in them just aren't worth following, you don't even need to read what happened. You just know. Where's the fun in that? What's the point in watching?

If I ever thought I could do it, I'd say I quit, and I'm not going to post on this or any related thread again. But I know that would be a lie. If I was Bradley Wiggins, I'd say it anyway, then pretend I didn't. But I'm not, and I know I'm liable to get sucked into another such argument, so I won't.
 
Puckfiend said:
At least his lid is on straight in the picture. He looked all Virenque riding away from Contador in stage 5 with his helmet cocked to one side. I guess he was too focused on his power meter to straighten it back up.
And maybe riding with his elbows sticking out to the side flapping in the wind is the reason for his success, along with his upper body bobbing back and forth. Not a pretty sight. Doesn't mean he is shooting up, but it makes it harder to give him a break.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Big Doopie said:
fgl, that may have happened too.

But check out 2000 hautacam if you can bare it. Zulle Armstrong and pantani attack. Zulle drops back but pantani hangs on. And then cracks. Looks down at his power meter and shakes his head.
Hautacam 1994 has Pantani shaking his head when he looks back and sees the Indurain express closing in on him.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY