Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Froome did very well, I am growing more fond of him every day. That special Pinarello worked just fine for him, He must have reconned this stage, twice.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

What about the bilharzia? While I don't believe Froome is clean, you can hardly ignore the fact that that had a major effect on his career pre-2011. Then throw in the fact he possibly turned to doping to save his career, and suddenly you've got a massively transformed rider, who is now competing on a level playing field with all the other dopers eg Cobo. Now he's got Contador Nibali and Quintana. Do you honestly believe any of those guys are clean either?

My stance is that Froome did have bilharzia or something similar which caused, in whole or in part, his regression after his promising 2008 and early 2009 with Barloworld (which is, of course, a shady team, however). However, I do not believe that the amount of talent shown pre-bilharzia, and the amount of talent shown from the Vuelta 2011 onwards, match up, and I also struggle to believe the timing of it, that it would clear up so perfectly in time for contract negotiations to reveal this unpolished diamond that turns out to be the greatest natural climbing gift since Herrera... and then strike again shortly after the 2011 season causing him to suck out loud all through 2012 until the Dauphiné, where it got cleared up in time for him to make mincemeat of the whole field and be forced to wait for a guy who transformed just as startlingly.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Just an idea, but is it possible that the Bilharzia, and the treatment renders Froome's biopassport almost worthless? After all,red blood cell count and HgB are affected, right?

Could he transfuse and microdose with impunity?

Could Thomas's missing spleen also affect his biopassport readings?

The margin of 'doubt' is pretty wide as it is, right?

 

[Sunny]

Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Just admit, Froome is funny as hell. It's like Eddie the Eagle becoming Jens Weisflog.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Just admit, Froome is funny as hell. It's like Eddie the Eagle becoming Jens Weisflog.

I don´t have a clue about who they are

 

[Sunny]

Re: Re:

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Just admit, Froome is funny as hell. It's like Eddie the Eagle becoming Jens Weisflog.

Well, some other rides were or still are as funny as him. That is not a reason to hate him.
I think most people who are hating on Froome/Sky are just looking for a way to entertain themselves...

This kind of mindset is very hypocritical and unfortunately very widespread. Because, if people were truly trying to point into what's bad in/for this sport (in order to change those things), they would be writing about people behind the scenes, those who are truly in control.
Riders are the biggest victims! Some people may suffer for the rest of their lives because of the chemicals they took. Why did they took them? Because of greed. Rider may be greedy, but the greediest are exactly those behind the scenes.

And cycling fans are hypocrites.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Just admit, Froome is funny as hell. It's like Eddie the Eagle becoming Jens Weisflog.

Jens Weisflog - now there's a name from the past. Bet you didn't think a limey would know of him

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

Oh I spread it around. It aint 'hate' though.

Froome is the current biggest donkey to racehorse story in the sport so he gets the majority of 'criticism' not 'hate'.

Yes most if not all the peloton is cheating!

We dont know if he is the best!

He may be taking more PEDS than the rest!

He may be the best responder!

He may have failed all his tests but UCI wont ban him!

We dont know what dope everyone is on!

We had the same BS arguments for Armstrong and we know how that ended

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Just admit, Froome is funny as hell. It's like Eddie the Eagle becoming Jens Weisflog.

I don´t have a clue about who they are

You missed out

As for Froome, he is too skinny too early, juiced to the gills or not. The attacks will probably be going off like a machine gun in the longer climbs, and I think he will really struggle on the ones after stages with the shorter, steeper climbs especially stage 19. As a whole the mountain stages this year are unusually inviting for long range attacks from the GC riders.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Contador has a long thread in here, but 99% of Contador's fans reckon he dopes. Same for Nibali. The Skyfans actually believe the BS from Sky that they are clean. The Sky threads are full of examples of Sky's lies, but they ignore that. Their contribution to Sky threads keeps the thread ticking over. That most Sky fans are newcomers to the sport and dont appear to have done any research into the sport but take the word of Sky as truth is another reason for what appears as vitriol towards Froome.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

Oh I spread it around. It aint 'hate' though.

Froome is the current biggest donkey to racehorse story in the sport so he gets the majority of 'criticism' not 'hate'.

Yes most if not all the peloton is cheating!

We dont know if he is the best!

He may be taking more PEDS than the rest!

He may be the best responder!

He may have failed all his tests but UCI wont ban him!

We dont know what dope everyone is on!

We had the same BS arguments for Armstrong and we know how that ended

maybe what Sunny was trying to say, it the level of criticism directed to him

just go read the comments about when the katusha rider swerves and froome holds it with a wheel almost on the curbs.
it was Froome´s fault straight away, it was his elbows fault. immediately. oh if he did not ride in that position the katusha rider would not have touched him etc etc, with people almost disappointed he did not fall

it´s this that´s strange. this sheer pointing at him.
maximus_hoggus on twitter saying Froome doing naturally well for his 63 kg on the cobbles, while Quintana weights 59 I guess, and Nibali maybe 65 and did good as him today, and better than him last year

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

Oh I spread it around. It aint 'hate' though.

Froome is the current biggest donkey to racehorse story in the sport so he gets the majority of 'criticism' not 'hate'.

Yes most if not all the peloton is cheating!

We dont know if he is the best!

He may be taking more PEDS than the rest!

He may be the best responder!

He may have failed all his tests but UCI wont ban him!

We dont know what dope everyone is on!

We had the same BS arguments for Armstrong and we know how that ended

maybe what Sunny was trying to say, it the level of criticism directed to him

just go read the comments about when the katusha rider swerves and froome holds it with a wheel almost on the curbs.
it was Froome´s fault straight away, it was his elbows fault. immediately. oh if he did not ride in that position the katusha rider would not have touched him etc etc, with people almost disappointed he did not fall

it´s this that´s strange. this sheer pointing at him.
maximus_hoggus on twitter saying Froome doing naturally well for his 63 kg on the cobbles, while Quintana weights 59 I guess, and Nibali maybe 65 and did good as him today, and better than him last year

I doubt anyone thinks Froome looks like a natural on a bike!!

He did well today, but he still looks crap and unnatural on a bike.

As for the criticism from English speakers will be directed towards Anglo saxon riders. I bet Spanish forums take sides against various riders depending who they favour.

This is an English written forum.

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

Oh I spread it around. It aint 'hate' though.

Froome is the current biggest donkey to racehorse story in the sport so he gets the majority of 'criticism' not 'hate'.

Yes most if not all the peloton is cheating!

We dont know if he is the best!

He may be taking more PEDS than the rest!

He may be the best responder!

He may have failed all his tests but UCI wont ban him!

We dont know what dope everyone is on!

We had the same BS arguments for Armstrong and we know how that ended

maybe what Sunny was trying to say, it the level of criticism directed to him

just go read the comments about when the katusha rider swerves and froome holds it with a wheel almost on the curbs.
it was Froome´s fault straight away, it was his elbows fault. immediately. oh if he did not ride in that position the katusha rider would not have touched him etc etc, with people almost disappointed he did not fall

it´s this that´s strange. this sheer pointing at him.
maximus_hoggus on twitter saying Froome doing naturally well for his 63 kg on the cobbles, while Quintana weights 59 I guess, and Nibali maybe 65 and did good as him today, and better than him last year

I doubt anyone thinks Froome looks like a natural on a bike!!

He did well today, but he still looks crap and unnatural on a bike.

As for the criticism from English speakers will be directed towards Anglo saxon riders. I bet Spanish forums take sides against various riders depending who they favour.

This is an English written forum.

Sometimes being a werido is a good thing. Plenty of riders with a godly style that never won anything, much less the big one. It's obviously quite effective.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Sometimes being a werido is a good thing. Plenty of riders with a godly style that never won anything, much less the big one. It's obviously quite effective.

Sure, and other riders with bizarre, even ugly styles have been good climbers over the years - Fernando Escartín, Francisco Mancebo, Juan Mauricio Soler - but one of the issues with those "unorthodox" styles is that a lot of the "classical" styles are so effective because they're the most effective ways of changing up and down pace fluidly, enabling energy to not be wasted and resulting in less effort being expended. Quintana, for example, is aided by his general poker-faced expressionlessness, but when he changes up and down the tempo it looks effortless, fluid and graceful, no wasted energy. Froome even more so than those mentioned above, owing to his crazy high-cadence seated attacking and legs akimbo style (notwithstanding that none of them posted results of his level either), looks highly inefficient and wasteful of energy. Which makes his dominance even more egregious, because you then imagine, how good could he be if he wasn't wasting all this surplus power on his crawling-over-the-bike technique? And he time trials like a spider with its front legs raised, yet is almost able to match the world's best when he's on form - how good could he be if he had the almost perfect TT position of Martin? At least with Wiggins, when he was stomping the TTs, you could see why - he had a perfect flat back, minimal frontal area, absolutely no upper body movement. When Froome TTs up there with the specialists, it's hard to compute - how does he put that much power out while riding in such an efficient position?

Chris Froome's transformation back in 2011 always reminds me of another guy who was able to stomp everybody due to seemingly limitless ability to put the power down despite a wasteful, inefficient technique that many purists were mortified by. His name was Johann "Juanito" Mühlegg and his fairytale ended exactly the way you expect. I've never been able to unsee that.

 

[BigMac]

GPL

Great Post Libertine

 

[SeriousSam]

Yeah that's one of the key reasons I cannot help but continue to point at Froome. Even if I wanted to suspend disbelief, even if I wanted to stick my head into the sand and pretend that cycling is clean, Froome's participation in races makes it impossible. His absurd power advantage while having none of the characteristics that make his dominance even remotely plausible, is grating. It's almost a mockery.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

[
I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

Oh I spread it around. It aint 'hate' though.

Froome is the current biggest donkey to racehorse story in the sport so he gets the majority of 'criticism' not 'hate'.

Yes most if not all the peloton is cheating!

We dont know if he is the best!

He may be taking more PEDS than the rest!

He may be the best responder!

He may have failed all his tests but UCI wont ban him!

We dont know what dope everyone is on!

We had the same BS arguments for Armstrong and we know how that ended

maybe what Sunny was trying to say, it the level of criticism directed to him

just go read the comments about when the katusha rider swerves and froome holds it with a wheel almost on the curbs.
it was Froome´s fault straight away, it was his elbows fault. immediately. oh if he did not ride in that position the katusha rider would not have touched him etc etc, with people almost disappointed he did not fall

it´s this that´s strange. this sheer pointing at him.
maximus_hoggus on twitter saying Froome doing naturally well for his 63 kg on the cobbles, while Quintana weights 59 I guess, and Nibali maybe 65 and did good as him today, and better than him last year

I doubt anyone thinks Froome looks like a natural on a bike!!

He did well today, but he still looks crap and unnatural on a bike.

As for the criticism from English speakers will be directed towards Anglo saxon riders. I bet Spanish forums take sides against various riders depending who they favour.

This is an English written forum.

Sometimes being a werido is a good thing. Plenty of riders with a godly style that never won anything, much less the big one. It's obviously quite effective.

Froome aint a weirdo. He is unnatural. There is a difference. Lib's post is worth rereading for the waste of efficiency and the extra power Froome puts out to over come that inefficiency.

What is effective is the doping.........

 

[the sceptic]

Froome is a sick joke played on cycling fans. People who have put up with so much doping over the years, then this walking medical experiment shows up and does one thing more unbelievable after the next.

It's simply not fair that this guy who if not for Lars Petter Nordhaug getting sick probably wouldn't even be in procycling anymore is now starting to look like the next Merckx.

And don't even get me started on the british media.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Yeah that's one of the key reasons I cannot help but continue to point at Froome. Even if I wanted to suspend disbelief, even if I wanted to stick my head into the sand and pretend that cycling is clean, Froome's participation in races makes it impossible. His absurd power advantage while having none of the characteristics that make his dominance even remotely plausible, is grating. It's almost a mockery.

cycling is not clean, why do you have or would try to pretend it is?

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Froome is a sick joke played on cycling fans. People who have put up with so much doping over the years, then this walking medical experiment shows up and does one thing more unbelievable after the next.

It's simply not fair that this guy who if not for Lars Petter Nordhaug getting sick probably wouldn't even be in procycling anymore is now starting to look like the next Merckx.

And don't even get me started on the british media.

I agree 100% about the British media.

 

[Supimilian]

Re:

GPL

Great Post Libertine

Won't argue that he is generally suspect as #%€, but that position/climbing style argument is really really reaching. His TT position is actually very good. I would even argue it's better than Armstrongs, and ceirtainly better than Contadors. He gets low and narrow. Legs might be all over the place, but that is more a comfort issue as long as the power transfer is even. Cancellara also does this btw. People who say it's bad have little concept of aerodynamics.
Climbing style is also mostly about comfort, again, as long as the stroke is good at the foot. The Muhlegg comparison is not a good one, as CC skiing is has many more fine points technically (and even a guy like Muhlegg is not as bad as he is made out to be in this regard, but that's a whole other topic).

"He looks dumb lol" does not really do this forum justice. There is not much about the style that suggests exceptional leaks in power vs the opposition. Stupid as it might look.

 

[Saint Unix]

That's always been my biggest gripe with Froome. Look at anyone else among the top riders.

When Quintana climbs it's power straight down into the pedals, upper body still and head up. No wasted energy. It looks effortless, and anyone who watches him can understand why he's fast up the hills. Contador climbs with a fair bit of body movement, but it's exciting to watch, almost playful, especially when he attacks.

Watch Nibali in a descent or on the cobbles, especially during the 5th stage of the 2014 Tour. Perfect bike handling. The bike is an extension of his body.

Time trial specialists all have a common denominator, whether they're called Cancellara, Martin, Castroviejo, Dennis, Dumoulin, Wiggins or Phinney. Absolutely flawless position on the bike. Completely aero and not a single limb catching unnecessary wind.

Somehow, however, Froome is able to climb AND time trial with the best of them when on top form, despite looking like a wet rag slumped over his bike at all times. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's impossible to root for him because his grossly unaesthetic style just makes you want to scratch your eyes out, especially when he accelerates with the Froome Sentrifuge seated attack.

The aesthetic part of sports is important to me, and I feel like it gives you a good indication on an athlete's level. You can understand why someone like Domracheva is a fast skier when watching her compete. The greats in football like Maradona, Messi, Best, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Cruyff all have a grace about them on the ball. Their body shape is just right and their movements are fluid. You can see why they're able to pull off difficult skills on a regular basis. Watching Froome pound seven shades of poop out of climbers and time triallers alike is like Lee Cattermole suddenly becoming a world class attacker and Ballon d'Or candidate, while playing with the style of a street thug.

It should be noted that Cadel Evans never looked like a bunch of roses riding his bike, but when he was wrestling his bike up a climb he was suffering like a dog barely trying to hang on to the riders attacking like they could go all day. No matter how dirty or clean Evans was, that type of riding will always strike me as more believable than Froome's time warp pedal spins off the front of a bunch that's already on the limit of what they can handle.

But that's just one of many things that irk me with The Dawg. Nothing adds up with him. The only explanation is that he's one of the best responders to dope the world has ever seen and/or that he's on a cocktail of many different enhancers to get the best every PED has to offer, from the blood boosting of bags and EPO to the weight loss of AICAR and gw1516. When you look at the fact that they hired Leinders and that they still employ the services of Knaven and Arvesen (come on... road captain for Bjarne Riis' team for the better part of a decade without being in on the dirty little secrets? Give me a break.) there's little doubt that the ZTP is little more than a smokescreen to fend off the most gullible of the sport's followers.

 

[Sunny]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Contador has a long thread in here, but 99% of Contador's fans reckon he dopes. Same for Nibali. The Skyfans actually believe the BS from Sky that they are clean. The Sky threads are full of examples of Sky's lies, but they ignore that. Their contribution to Sky threads keeps the thread ticking over. That most Sky fans are newcomers to the sport and dont appear to have done any research into the sport but take the word of Sky as truth is another reason for what appears as vitriol towards Froome.

I think you are generalizing too much. Mostly British people believe Sky is clean. And as you said this is an English speaking forum, so most "fans" of Sky who's comments you read here are British. I, myself, am relatively new to this sport, but I believe that Sky is not clean.