Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 63 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Libertine Seguros said:
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 Fr

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.
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.
Keep the faith.

I think all that can be done is laugh.

I used to get wound up by Armstrong. But now when I watch Froome I literally laugh at the TV.

I agree that he soils cycling but what else can you do?
 
thehog said:
Keep the faith.

I think all that can be done is laugh.

I used to get wound up by Armstrong. But now when I watch Froome I literally laugh at the TV.

I agree that he soils cycling but what else can you do?
Cycling is nice to view it as comedy. Some of the better cycling videos on youtube are the one with ridiculous performance.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Cycling is nice to view it as comedy. Some of the better cycling videos on youtube are the one with ridiculous performance.
i should feel sad when froome drops Contador but i always laugh. Maybe something mental with me, laughing to get over it. Could be.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
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.
Wonderful post Libertine. Refreshing, to the point and honest. The gong has been beaten far too many times. Just let them have at it I say. This place is going to be rabid in July and most of us in the Clinic have already heard enough and seen enough to know the score.

My break from this place last month was the best month I've had in years and I didn't watch any cycling. New how the Giro went, but didn't watch a single stage. Maybe do what I did last Tour...if the freak show gets too nauseating, just kick back. Now I know it's different in your corner of the world time wise, and going to bed early isn't an option, but doing something else is always good.

I have a feeling anyway, this years Tour will be unqiue. Something unexpected is going to happen. I'm still looking forward to how Taaramae will go. I have a good feeling about him. Plus Voeckler looks keen. Schleck might even kick up his heels and hit full throttle. Plus the Spanish trio will put up a fight. It isn't over yet. Sky haven't got this done and dusted. Anything can happen. Anything.

Just remember, you're time is more valuable to you than time spent on Sky.
 
Excellent post, Libertine. Well said. I share your lack of motivation for watching these races with Froome. Normally, I would wake up early to watch a stage like today, but I thought, why? It's easy to figure out how it ends.

Sure enough.

We are at the point of thinking "anything can happen" in order to inject some modicum of suspense into the Tour. Sad, really. Cycling hasn't changed ONE bit.
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
thehog said:
You should know what race it is. You've been following him his whole career :rolleyes:

God I love this picture.

Do you think Contador ever had to push a teammate?

Froome was a fattie compared to how he currently looks huh :D
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
Excellent post, Libertine. Well said. I share your lack of motivation for watching these races with Froome. Normally, I would wake up early to watch a stage like today, but I thought, why? It's easy to figure out how it ends.

Sure enough.

We are at the point of thinking "anything can happen" in order to inject some modicum of suspense into the Tour. Sad, really. Cycling hasn't changed ONE bit.
Touche Moose, touche.

Agree with your post. I could watch the Dauphine on tv, but I'd rather read about it and laugh. I also like your recent humour along with Bro Deal's. Makes this bearable. Keep it up;)
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
webbie146 said:
Froome was a fattie compared to how he currently looks huh :D
what you mean its not normal to lose a lot of weight at age 26 when you already train X amount of thousands of KMs a year.
 
Oct 17, 2011
1,315
0
0
SundayRider said:
what you mean its not normal to lose a lot of weight at age 26 when you already train X amount of thousands of KMs a year.
Well yea in that picture he looks thin but natural. These day he looks like anorexia lol.. Kinda reminds me of Rasmussen.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
Honestly, all this unhealthy saturnalia around Froome even makes me support him more. I'm just wondering what rules his ill-wishers, the thread bristle with. It's obviously not doping Even most evil anti doping posters forgot about other dopers long ago and only Froome exists for them. In my view, inability to explain his fast growing is the reason he is hated that much. Fans rely on their 5-10-20 year fan experience so much that think that can explain anything. Though, how fan monitoring the forums can be a real cycling expert is unknown for me. I rate my cycling knowledge modestly and adequately0. I'm an usual sofa fan who, despite quite attentive 10 year period following, doesn't know by&large anything about how the system works from the inside. So I'm absolutely patient regardng the things I can't explain.

But when some s****r reads in wiki about easiest wattage formulas, does elementary calculations and start slinging riders mud and splashing bile, it's really laughable.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
If you believe dawg is clean then you just have to ask yourself a couple of simple questions.

If he starts doping would he beat the record on every mountain?

Is he already beating other dopers consistenly? How much would he beat them if he started doping like them?

If he is clean then he is certainly one of the biggest talents in the history of the sport (see above), if so, why was he regarded as a bottom level pro until 2011?
 
Libertine Seguros said:
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.
Well..I really appreciate this post Libertine...
Froome is not someone I like to watch at all either
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
the sceptic said:
If you believe dawg is clean then you just have to ask yourself a couple of simple questions.

If he starts doping would he beat the record on every mountain?

Is he already beating other dopers consistenly? How much would he beat them if he started doping like them?

If he is clean then he is certainly one of the biggest talents in the history of the sport (see above), if so, why was he regarded as a bottom level pro until 2011?
Completely impossible to argue against that.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
the sceptic said:
If you believe dawg is clean then you just have to ask yourself a couple of simple questions.

If he starts doping would he beat the record on every mountain?

Is he already beating other dopers consistenly? How much would he beat them if he started doping like them?

If he is clean then he is certainly one of the biggest talents in the history of the sport (see above), if so, why was he regarded as a bottom level pro until 2011?
Almost nobody here believes Froome is clean, you have to pretty ignorant to think the peloton isn't >90% dirty. What dawg's doing right now isn't to be within the human limit, or whatever's the reference nowadays, he actually rides within the limits of anti doping controls. Just like any other current GC rider under normal circumstances.(ie not on Vini F.)

I can't tell you who the biggest climbing talents in the peloton are, nobody here knows. What people around here can tell you is that Froome isn't one of the biggest talents, of course they do know that.

Ridiculous, if you ask me. Froome's a top cyclist like any other, and under current conditions(race tactics, UCI controls and training) he is the best rider in the world. If people don't like it, why the hell are they still watching?
 
Jul 8, 2009
323
0
0
Pentacycle said:
Almost nobody here believes Froome is clean, you have to pretty ignorant to think the peloton isn't >90% dirty. What dawg's doing right now isn't to be within the human limit, or whatever's the reference nowadays, he actually rides within the limits of anti doping controls. Just like any other current GC rider under normal circumstances.(ie not on Vini F.)

I can't tell you who the biggest climbing talents in the peloton are, nobody here knows. What people around here can tell you is that Froome isn't one of the biggest talents, of course they do know that.

Ridiculous, if you ask me. Froome's a top cyclist like any other, and under current conditions(race tactics, UCI controls and training) he is the best rider in the world. If people don't like it, why the hell are they still watching?
"We tremble when our radar screams during the 2011 Vuelta on the climb to Peña Cabarga (470 watts for 17 minutes) or to Planche des Belles Filles during the last Tour de France (467 watts for more than 15 minutes). Froome is usually more discreet, staying around 400-410 watts." - Not Normal?

Is this really the same fella who was furtively attached to a motorbike in the Giro the year before?
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
vrusimov said:
"We tremble when our radar screams during the 2011 Vuelta on the climb to Peña Cabarga (470 watts for 17 minutes) or to Planche des Belles Filles during the last Tour de France (467 watts for more than 15 minutes). Froome is usually more discreet, staying around 400-410 watts." - Not Normal?

Is this really the same fella who was furtively attached to a motorbike in the Giro the year before?
I was rewatching some old footage from the 2011 TdSuisse. Some obscure rider attacks from the group of favourites on Crans montana, only to be reeled back in by team Schleck. Some say he isn't a real climber, only to become one after obtaining mutant strength in the '11 Vuelta.
 
Appreciation

Libertine Seguros said:
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.
I also appreciate your excellent writing skills and info...I only watch the racing now for the comedy factor - its like watching a train wreck...Froome will soon do a Rasmussen and dope himself overboard.
 
Cycle Chic said:
I also appreciate your excellent writing skills and info...I only watch the racing now for the comedy factor - its like watching a train wreck...Froome will soon do a Rasmussen and dope himself overboard.
At least Rasmussen was fun to watch even though it is very obvious what's going on
For Froome, he should stop staring at his SRM :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS