Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 644 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
I have the same type of veins popping on my arms, and hands. Temperature makes a huge difference in their appearance. The hotter the temps, the more pronounced they are. When I was running seriously, I was about 6 ft, 130lbs (59 kilos). I am not in shape right now, and weigh about 150lbs (68 kg), but with the same vein appearance. So, IMHO, vein-ology is not very accurate way to measure body fat.

sounds like you should get tested for badzilla.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
I have the same type of veins popping on my arms, and hands. Temperature makes a huge difference in their appearance. The hotter the temps, the more pronounced they are. When I was running seriously, I was about 6 ft, 130lbs (59 kilos). I am not in shape right now, and weigh about 150lbs (68 kg), but with the same vein appearance. So, IMHO, vein-ology is not very accurate way to measure body fat.
In case of Froome it is, just do a googel search on the tour de Suisse 2011 and Froome, you will see the fat bastard without popping veins. Fourty days later at the Ride of London he suddenly is 6KG lighter. Badzillah must make you FAT...
 
But you just ignored my main point that having veins showing is very context dependent. I don't know Froome's physiology, just thought that people posting about the topic could use a firsthand account. Face thinness and veins showing can be an indication of general body weight, but should nt be used to accurately predict body fat %. JMO.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
That's a silly tweet from Kimmage. Of all froomes tt performances he chooses liege- a year froome finished 2 nd overall? And the suggestion that he is done because of one average tt yesterday?

I could be wrong, but I don't take the tweet as a suggestion Froome is done. It seems to me he is implicating RD by way of noting how far Froome fell in the standings.
That said, I agree that it's a silly tweet. No way Froome or any of the top contenders cared a bit about finishing first in the opening tt. Tactically speaking, it would be dumb.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
The Hitch said:
That's a silly tweet from Kimmage. Of all froomes tt performances he chooses liege- a year froome finished 2 nd overall? And the suggestion that he is done because of one average tt yesterday?

I could be wrong, but I don't take the tweet as a suggestion Froome is done. It seems to me he is implicating RD by way of noting how far Froome fell in the standings.
That said, I agree that it's a silly tweet. No way Froome or any of the top contenders cared a bit about finishing first in the opening tt. Tactically speaking, it would be dumb.
Why? Sure you might not want an egregious show of strength, and you don't want to be peaking on day 1, but if he COULD finish first without compromising later form, you'd want to. Always take time on your opponents where you can. They could always offload the yellow jersey to a breakaway after that if they don't fancy going for a Bugno.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Kimmage was pointing out that Froome was up for prologues before and now not. Question was why? As LS says, you take time when and where you can cos you may not get another chance.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
the delgados said:
The Hitch said:
That's a silly tweet from Kimmage. Of all froomes tt performances he chooses liege- a year froome finished 2 nd overall? And the suggestion that he is done because of one average tt yesterday?

I could be wrong, but I don't take the tweet as a suggestion Froome is done. It seems to me he is implicating RD by way of noting how far Froome fell in the standings.
That said, I agree that it's a silly tweet. No way Froome or any of the top contenders cared a bit about finishing first in the opening tt. Tactically speaking, it would be dumb.
Why? Sure you might not want an egregious show of strength, and you don't want to be peaking on day 1, but if he COULD finish first without compromising later form, you'd want to. Always take time on your opponents where you can. They could always offload the yellow jersey to a breakaway after that if they don't fancy going for a Bugno.

I hear you, and I always defer to people here with more knowledge about the sport than me. I guess my point is why would Froome, Contador, et al bust their ass on an opening day tt? That would just mean extra work for their teammates on meaningless early stages. Why would they bother? Just let the stage hunters fight it out until the time comes for the real work to begin.
I haven't checked overall results, but I think most of the contenders finished with times similar to one another; all of whom could have lost five minutes to the stage 1 winner without consequence.
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
the delgados said:
The Hitch said:
That's a silly tweet from Kimmage. Of all froomes tt performances he chooses liege- a year froome finished 2 nd overall? And the suggestion that he is done because of one average tt yesterday?

I could be wrong, but I don't take the tweet as a suggestion Froome is done. It seems to me he is implicating RD by way of noting how far Froome fell in the standings.
That said, I agree that it's a silly tweet. No way Froome or any of the top contenders cared a bit about finishing first in the opening tt. Tactically speaking, it would be dumb.
Why? Sure you might not want an egregious show of strength, and you don't want to be peaking on day 1, but if he COULD finish first without compromising later form, you'd want to. Always take time on your opponents where you can. They could always offload the yellow jersey to a breakaway after that if they don't fancy going for a Bugno.

Froome is doping, no doubt in my mind, but I also believe their marginal gains mindset is a real thing. This was a short stage, with little to be gained by pushing yourself like it would have a dramatic effect on winning the Overall. They are keeping their powder dry, and evidence can be seen of that if you watched today's stage. They did no work, and let other teams make the race for them. I can't see where Froome had anything to prove, nor does he appear to have that mindset. He isn't Lance Armstrong. He doesn't ride like he needs to show everyone who is boss on every stage. He sits back, knowing that he has the fuel to spin like a 300hp washing machine with an unbalanced load, anytime he needs to. He also knows that he can blunt that kind of ride by beating his legs up more than he needs to. Lets face it, he dopes, but he also knows that everyone who has even a remote chance to challenge him is also doped to the gills. That being the case. you conserve energy unless there is a real reason not to, and there was no real reason to light it up yesterday.
 
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
the sceptic said:
djpbaltimore said:
Ball, not man, the sceptic.

BTW, badzilla is not actually a disease.

lighten up martin, it was just a joke.

Ball, not man, the sceptic

BTW, my first name is actually Dan.

if you are going to make the thread about yourself with irrelevant anecdotes you should also be able to handle a joke.

please try to stick to the topic.
 
Wasn't this the Froome thread? What I posted was about the topic Re: Froome's veins. Have a look, the sceptic. Care to address any of my substantive posts, or would you rather lob crass 'jokes' . Take care, friend

EDIT: No problem, irondan. Nice name BTW.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Libertine Seguros said:
the delgados said:
The Hitch said:
That's a silly tweet from Kimmage. Of all froomes tt performances he chooses liege- a year froome finished 2 nd overall? And the suggestion that he is done because of one average tt yesterday?

I could be wrong, but I don't take the tweet as a suggestion Froome is done. It seems to me he is implicating RD by way of noting how far Froome fell in the standings.
That said, I agree that it's a silly tweet. No way Froome or any of the top contenders cared a bit about finishing first in the opening tt. Tactically speaking, it would be dumb.
Why? Sure you might not want an egregious show of strength, and you don't want to be peaking on day 1, but if he COULD finish first without compromising later form, you'd want to. Always take time on your opponents where you can. They could always offload the yellow jersey to a breakaway after that if they don't fancy going for a Bugno.

I hear you, and I always defer to people here with more knowledge about the sport than me. I guess my point is why would Froome, Contador, et al bust their ass on an opening day tt? That would just mean extra work for their teammates on meaningless early stages. Why would they bother? Just let the stage hunters fight it out until the time comes for the real work to begin.
I haven't checked overall results, but I think most of the contenders finished with times similar to one another; all of whom could have lost five minutes to the stage 1 winner without consequence.
It's the only TT of the race and the TT is a part of the race where Froome and co. hold the cards over Quintana.

Realistically he wasn't likely to win even if he was peaking - he seldom WON prologues even in 2013. Even Wiggins didn't, and he started his road career as a prologue specialist! (He was 2nd in almost every prologue he entered, which is nigh on the perfect place - the best place without the responsibility of the leaders' jersey). If you do, by some unexpected circumstance, end up winning the opening TT, then that's bonus - even if your GC fails you've got something out of the race. Sky would then probably ease into the race and let somebody else take the maillot jaune for a few days when some unthreatening breakaway of French and Belgian domestiques - or even some Classics specialists - gets away. It's too early in the race for a Pereiro or an Arroyo to be getting into that kind of break, so they wouldn't be something to be afraid of.

Ordinarily, you'd want to not have the responsibility of the maillot jaune, but at times like this the 2012 Giro springs to my mind, and Michele Scarponi saying about how in stages 7 and 8 they'd seen Ryder struggling at the back of the heads of state group, and didn't attack as they figured he would drop away as the race went on - if he'd sent Niemiec to put the pace down at that point they could well have distanced him. As it was, the timid racing and not taking the time that was there for the taking meant that when Ryder - as he tends to do - rode himself into form as the race went on, he was still close enough to the front of the GC to be able to take the spoils.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Froome's devastating TT ability seems to have disappeared, yet his climbing could still be as good as it was in 2013 (Andalucia, Dauphine and Vuelta 2014 provide some indication of that)

Whatever is stopping him from doing well in TTs, unless he's lost even more weight, it cannot be a reduction in sustainable power, assuming he'll still be the best climber. Right?
 
Re:

the delgados said:
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
IIRC wiggins never got asked any questions when he came 2nd in the prologue in 2012.

You may say that he didn't get asked any questions because he is a former pursuiter, so prologues are a speciality.
Which means he should simply be asked the reverse question. What is a prologue specialist doing beating Nibali in the mountains.

But ask that question and all you'll hear is how since he wasn't "focused" on riding mountains earlier in his career, its perfectly ok and normal for him to be able to destroy the best climbers the moment he decides to finally give the mountains a try.

So by the same logic, if Contador or Froome do well in prologues, as Contador often did in earlier in his career, he should be allowed to simply say - I wasn't focused on prologues before. Like wiggo is allowed to.
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Froome's devastating TT ability seems to have disappeared, yet his climbing could still be as good as it was in 2013 (Andalucia, Dauphine and Vuelta 2014 provide some indication of that)

Whatever is stopping him from doing well in TTs, unless he's lost even more weight, it cannot be a reduction in sustainable power, assuming he'll still be the best climber. Right?

Recovery may have been a major factor in many of his tts as they took place later and after mountain stages. Dauphine last year there was a hill I think . He won early ones at Romandie and Crit Int but they were weaker fields. Ultimately though bring in the variable were doping plays the biggest role - recovery and Froome does better. Have that tt on stage 10 and he don't finish no 30th. Promise you that
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
the delgados said:
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
IIRC wiggins never got asked any questions when he came 2nd in the prologue in 2012.

You may say that he didn't get asked any questions because he is a former pursuiter, so prologues are a speciality.
Which means he should simply be asked the reverse question. What is a prologue specialist doing beating Nibali in the mountains.

But ask that question and all you'll hear is how since he wasn't "focused" on riding mountains earlier in his career, its perfectly ok and normal for him to be able to destroy the best climbers the moment he decides to finally give the mountains a try.

So by the same logic, if Contador or Froome do well in prologues, as Contador often did in earlier in his career, he should be allowed to simply say - I wasn't focused on prologues before. Like wiggo is allowed to.
IIRC that was when the questions started coming out and why Walsh was wheeled out to limit the PR damage.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
the delgados said:
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
IIRC wiggins never got asked any questions when he came 2nd in the prologue in 2012.

You may say that he didn't get asked any questions because he is a former pursuiter, so prologues are a speciality.
Which means he should simply be asked the reverse question. What is a prologue specialist doing beating Nibali in the mountains.

But ask that question and all you'll hear is how since he wasn't "focused" on riding mountains earlier in his career, its perfectly ok and normal for him to be able to destroy the best climbers the moment he decides to finally give the mountains a try.

So by the same logic, if Contador or Froome do well in prologues, as Contador often did in earlier in his career, he should be allowed to simply say - I wasn't focused on prologues before. Like wiggo is allowed to.

but in 2007 in the London prologue that Spartacus put about 30 seconds into him over 7km, it was supposed to be "2007 all focussed on the road this year, with the emphasis on the London prologue". And Spartacus crushed him. And so did Kloeden. And so did Hincapie.

now, a devel's advocate, Spartacus might be the best bike handler of a chrono bike with its disc wheel and deep rim front. He is about 80 kg, and can throw the bike into and out of corners. He is also super in the acceleration in and out, plus the acceleration of the start, and the final 500metre acceleration. Now, 10 seconds seems an enormous and overestimate, because this is about 150 metres when you add the 5 or 6 chicanes in London, and the start and finish. Well, Wiggo is still flying behind. And Wiggo can start and finish with aplomb. He was a WR team pursuiter that runs at 3'52" for 4km when they are pulling turns at 65km with nose in the wind. So Wiggo might give up a few metres on the finish and the start of the London prologue, lets say, 5 metres? so Cancellara got another 145 throwing his body into the corners like Rossi on a 500cc? yep, I reckon he does. p'raps someone like Mcewen or Sagan can maintain the speed into the corners, and the acceleration to the terminal velocity out of the corner/chicane.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
The Hitch said:
the delgados said:
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
IIRC wiggins never got asked any questions when he came 2nd in the prologue in 2012.

You may say that he didn't get asked any questions because he is a former pursuiter, so prologues are a speciality.
Which means he should simply be asked the reverse question. What is a prologue specialist doing beating Nibali in the mountains.

But ask that question and all you'll hear is how since he wasn't "focused" on riding mountains earlier in his career, its perfectly ok and normal for him to be able to destroy the best climbers the moment he decides to finally give the mountains a try.

So by the same logic, if Contador or Froome do well in prologues, as Contador often did in earlier in his career, he should be allowed to simply say - I wasn't focused on prologues before. Like wiggo is allowed to.
IIRC that was when the questions started coming out and why Walsh was wheeled out to limit the PR damage.

I see it as having happened differently. The questions should have been asked in 2009. Back in 2009, cycling was still Lance's empire and no one asked doping questions.

Then when Wiggins showed climbing form again in 2011 and 12 sky and wiggins simply said - well he showed it before in 2009, so its not a transformation.

This is the same pathetic trick they tried with Froome a number of times, especially with the Grappe scam. Grappe said that Froome had the same power output since 2011 Vuelta. Therefore its not suspicious :rolleyes:

You can see clearly the kind of idiot Sky aim their pr towards. People too dumb to ask - well how did the original transformation take place, who just accept any prior result as proof the rider always must have had talent.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
42x16ss said:
The Hitch said:
the delgados said:
p.s. A cycnic might suggest holding back is better for the sport. No one wants to ruin the party on the opening day by having to answer questions about why the mountain goats beat out the likes of Rohan, Tony and Fabian on a short opening day time-trial.
IIRC wiggins never got asked any questions when he came 2nd in the prologue in 2012.

You may say that he didn't get asked any questions because he is a former pursuiter, so prologues are a speciality.
Which means he should simply be asked the reverse question. What is a prologue specialist doing beating Nibali in the mountains.
Good point. When cycling didn't exist in the UK before 2012 (like it didn't before 1999 in the USA) I guess that kind of BS will wash.
But ask that question and all you'll hear is how since he wasn't "focused" on riding mountains earlier in his career, its perfectly ok and normal for him to be able to destroy the best climbers the moment he decides to finally give the mountains a try.

So by the same logic, if Contador or Froome do well in prologues, as Contador often did in earlier in his career, he should be allowed to simply say - I wasn't focused on prologues before. Like wiggo is allowed to.
IIRC that was when the questions started coming out and why Walsh was wheeled out to limit the PR damage.

I see it as having happened differently. The questions should have been asked in 2009. Back in 2009, cycling was still Lance's empire and no one asked doping questions.

Then when Wiggins showed climbing form again in 2011 and 12 sky and wiggins simply said - well he showed it before in 2009, so its not a transformation.

This is the same pathetic trick they tried with Froome a number of times, especially with the Grappe scam. Grappe said that Froome had the same power output since 2011 Vuelta. Therefore its not suspicious :rolleyes:

You can see clearly the kind of idiot Sky aim their pr towards. People too dumb to ask - well how did the original transformation take place, who just accept any prior result as proof the rider always must have had talent.
Good point. When you consider that cycling didn't exist until 2012 according to the UK (like it didn't exist until 1999 in the USA) I can see how that kind of BS could wash with many.