• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 752 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
in 2007 Froome was almost starting in cycling

I strenuously disagree.

These are his results in amateur races that date back to 2001.

Perhaps you could reconsider your claim that he was only just starting cycling in 2007?

CLHNQSFVAAA5vGa.png:large

Just starting cycling compared most of european cyclist. That are not important races, some of them are like here cyclotourist... but as everything I promise inform better about., before to have a better opinion of that, I am happy you answer with argument.

He'd been racing for 6 years.

Theze was prepared to lie about Froome being noticeable with crap results like the ones in that list, and that's why he was accepted to WCC.

Theze then says he had physiology like Hinault.

But his results are nothing like Hinault.

You can keep making up pathetic excuses for his inability to ride, but bottom line, he dopes now, and that's the problem.

If the races are not important, then wonderboy should be smashing everyone there. Instead, he's crap. Utter crap. Brown, runny, smelly crap.

I knew he didn't have much of a pedigree but didn't realise it was that bad! :eek:
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo, are they CQ results?

pretty overwhelming. I know John Robertson ran a "program" on his teams. The debut from Froome dawg at the Tour was impressive, not as impressive as Mauricio Soler's ride, not as good as Kansta Sioutsou, but impressive nonetheless, just like taxus spoke about Dog Froome, or was that dog'ged Froome? #hilary and #hilarities allround
 
I didnt spoke about dog Froome, I even dont know what does it means.

The only thing I know is that you can consider that he had poor results sometimes, he didnt take a bike and starting to win to everybody, John Lee looked more promising acording to some result, but the fact is that in 2008 Froome give some results, and more than results, performance, that acording to his circusntances, were to take at least into account.That is a fact. And more if that rider was clean, becouse there was still lot od doping in 2008, although it was with difference the cleanest Tour in lot of years.

Later he just had a top result in 2009, at the begining, and one in 2010, at the end. The rest is sometimes ok, considered he had Soler in the team and had to work, but not the performance you has in mind for a future TdF winner: Yes, that is true. and I understand that his result in la Vuelta in 2011 can be considering as suspicious, but there is a fact, the Froome in 2008 showed that 3 years later he could be wining le Tour de France.

Of course, than was a lot of riders that you could think the same: Gesink, Mollema, Urán, Rui Costa, Tony Martin, Rolland, Dan Martin, Intxausti, .. I woudnt be surprised with any of them and more...

To finish your first GT, the most difficult one, leTour, like this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8024

If you are clean and most of the rest are dopers, and it is a possibility that you may always consider, and that suits very well with what we see today, it is to have really really into account if you understand about cycling. Look at the people who is behind him
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:

Because they don't mean crap.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5300
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6239

He finished top 10 or worse.

He was crap and still would be without the pharmacy pumped into his body.

do you know how many times he crashed in that race, I do.

he was fat and he didnt know how to race, someone said that in that moment, but was impresed by him, expert said then he was the strongest that race. and more than that race.

Ah I see.

So if he gets a good result in a stage, that proves he was a great rider.
If he goes crap overall, that's coz he crashed and had a lot to learn about racing.

Heads you win, tails I lose right? Is that it?

That expert was training him for 2007. And he came 41st against real world class riders, not the continental riders he was racing in the races you chose to show.

Froome was crap. And still is. The pharmacy running through his veins makes him good, and nothing else.

U23 Worlds and UCI U23 NC are pretty much the same level of competition.
 
Re:

Lyon said:
So Froome has the physiology of Hinault and is incredibly mentally strong but cannot win even a club race against this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL-t_eTl0Ls

I dont think he has the physiology of Hinault, Hinault is a rider fot clasicc as well, and had a big dominance in the ITT and i the climbs.

What make Froome so especial, it is that, other big champions started very strong in result, that is sometimes even a problem for the future.

Your argument is so poor that doesnt deserve my answer, I am sorry.

If my article is: an unpolished diamond, as SKy called him in his first year with them, is becouse Froome needed to polish.

But as far as I know, Froome started cycling by getting an stage in Tour de Mauritious.

Most of the race he race at the behining were one day races and short, he is good in long races with long stagesm and long climbs.
 
Aug 5, 2015
91
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:

Because they don't mean crap.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5300
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6239

He finished top 10 or worse.

He was crap and still would be without the pharmacy pumped into his body.

do you know how many times he crashed in that race, I do.

he was fat and he didnt know how to race, someone said that in that moment, but was impresed by him, expert said then he was the strongest that race. and more than that race.

Ah I see.

So if he gets a good result in a stage, that proves he was a great rider.
If he goes crap overall, that's coz he crashed and had a lot to learn about racing.

Heads you win, tails I lose right? Is that it?

That expert was training him for 2007. And he came 41st against real world class riders, not the continental riders he was racing in the races you chose to show.

Froome was crap. And still is. The pharmacy running through his veins makes him good, and nothing else.

Got to love the certainty here that Froome is doping. Sure there are doubts, not just about Froome but about all of them. If you are this certain, why aren't you making the case to the relevant authority? Or, are you really like the rest of us - you suspect but do not know for sure?
 
Re: Re:

Texeng said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:

Because they don't mean crap.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5300
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6239

He finished top 10 or worse.

He was crap and still would be without the pharmacy pumped into his body.

do you know how many times he crashed in that race, I do.

he was fat and he didnt know how to race, someone said that in that moment, but was impresed by him, expert said then he was the strongest that race. and more than that race.

Ah I see.

So if he gets a good result in a stage, that proves he was a great rider.
If he goes crap overall, that's coz he crashed and had a lot to learn about racing.

Heads you win, tails I lose right? Is that it?

That expert was training him for 2007. And he came 41st against real world class riders, not the continental riders he was racing in the races you chose to show.

Froome was crap. And still is. The pharmacy running through his veins makes him good, and nothing else.

Got to love the certainty here that Froome is doping. Sure there are doubts, not just about Froome but about all of them. If you are this certain, why aren't you making the case to the relevant authority? Or, are you really like the rest of us - you suspect but do not know for sure?

They think that all is corrupted, so that doesnt work, I think that way in lot of aspect of how world is ruled, in fact, I know a lot of things about how the would work aout, so it would be easy that cycling still has the same BS of corruption, but there is more thing to think that now is different, and although i consider SKy has an advantage respect the other, it is no by doping, by the contrary, sometimes are others that coud be doping a little stiil now.

I understand that people thinks this way after what we see in the past and considering Wigggins and froome hadnt the typical progression of a pro before to win le Tour. But is just a coincidence, they have a big talent for races as le Tour, although Sky of course played a role in them.

Froome is not a climber, (as well he is not an TT especialist), so he will have problems with people as Quintana in very tough races.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
If my article is: an unpolished diamond, as SKy called him in his first year with them, is becouse Froome needed to polish.
Leave Polish out of it, he is not the guilty party here.

They polished Froomey inbetween Tour de Pologne and the Vuelta 2011, care to explain what kinda 'polishing' that would be?

Or did he just in those weeks inbetween learned how to handle his bike? Being a former mountainbiker and stuff [meh, those guys have no bike handling skills...]

@Taxus, I lost the link to your blog, can you please link to it?
 
Re: Re:

Texeng said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:

Because they don't mean crap.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5300
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6239

He finished top 10 or worse.

He was crap and still would be without the pharmacy pumped into his body.

do you know how many times he crashed in that race, I do.

he was fat and he didnt know how to race, someone said that in that moment, but was impresed by him, expert said then he was the strongest that race. and more than that race.

Ah I see.

So if he gets a good result in a stage, that proves he was a great rider.
If he goes crap overall, that's coz he crashed and had a lot to learn about racing.

Heads you win, tails I lose right? Is that it?

That expert was training him for 2007. And he came 41st against real world class riders, not the continental riders he was racing in the races you chose to show.

Froome was crap. And still is. The pharmacy running through his veins makes him good, and nothing else.

Got to love the certainty here that Froome is doping. Sure there are doubts, not just about Froome but about all of them. If you are this certain, why aren't you making the case to the relevant authority? Or, are you really like the rest of us - you suspect but do not know for sure?

There are no doubts about "all of them". The majority of those Froome humiliates are either already convicted dopers, defenders of dopers or riding for teams under tutelage of a doping DS or has a history with doping doctors and cheating. The "doubts" is that there are special someones who thinks Froome is cleanest of clean while doing it despite everything we know of his and Sky's lies.
 
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Taxus4a said:
If my article is: an unpolished diamond, as SKy called him in his first year with them, is becouse Froome needed to polish.
Leave Polish out of it, he is not the guilty party here.

They polished Froomey inbetween Tour de Pologne and the Vuelta 2011, care to explain what kinda 'polishing' that would be?

Or did he just in those weeks inbetween learned how to handle his bike? Being a former mountainbiker and stuff [meh, those guys have no bike handling skills...]

@Taxus, I lost the link to your blog, can you please link to it?

http://patrimoniociclista.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/an-unpolished-diamond-story-of-chris.h

it was in spanish, so the translation can be not so good, but the links in english are important.

Of course today I could put more things and maybe dont give so many importance to some points, but dont change too much.

it is not, but was necessary.

I was to answered abut what you say about Poland, but my answer is there.
 
Re: Re:

Texeng said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Taxus4a said:

Because they don't mean crap.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5300
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6239

He finished top 10 or worse.

He was crap and still would be without the pharmacy pumped into his body.

do you know how many times he crashed in that race, I do.

he was fat and he didnt know how to race, someone said that in that moment, but was impresed by him, expert said then he was the strongest that race. and more than that race.

Ah I see.

So if he gets a good result in a stage, that proves he was a great rider.
If he goes crap overall, that's coz he crashed and had a lot to learn about racing.

Heads you win, tails I lose right? Is that it?

That expert was training him for 2007. And he came 41st against real world class riders, not the continental riders he was racing in the races you chose to show.

Froome was crap. And still is. The pharmacy running through his veins makes him good, and nothing else.

Got to love the certainty here that Froome is doping. Sure there are doubts, not just about Froome but about all of them. If you are this certain, why aren't you making the case to the relevant authority? Or, are you really like the rest of us - you suspect but do not know for sure?
There is a difference between being sure and being able to prove something
When someone is obviously drunk, you don't say "well I suspect he's drunk, but until I get my hands on a blood test I can't be certain about it"
Nope, you know
Just like some people know that riders x and y are doped
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
Disagree. None of you know, even if you pretend that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Re:

wendybnt said:
None of you know, so stop pretending that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.
After this wisdom of Wendy I am pretty sure this topic can be closed, thanks Wendy.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
wendybnt said:
None of you know, so stop pretending that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.
After this wisdom of Wendy I am pretty sure this topic can be closed, thanks Wendy.

If only skybots had said this 3 years ago. Clinic could have closed.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re:

wendybnt said:
Disagree. None of you know, even if you pretend that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.

sorry W, it is how you define "know". That is the disagreement. We have seen cycling for the last two decades, I am sure you have too, we don't think anyone has won a clean Tour since Lemond, and most are even skeptical of Greg. We know a comprehensive Ferrari doping program can provide a 20% rise in the sustainable threshold power. We know the climbing numbers and p/w from Froome are in the ballpark of the other "winners".

We know you can keep your levels in the urine tests below thresholds and pass the tests. You would therefore consider this "clean". We know you can maintain your blood passport with microdosing and a pint of packed cells in the rest-days and before the start. We know a sound logistics strategy can avoid police enforcement.

With resources and planning you can avoid breaching positive thresholds.

so... that leaves alternative methods to interpret PED use.

you can deny "knowledge", but this is mere semantics.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Wendy, this is the paradox of proof.

You agree that the bar is set at a legitimate height.

I do not wish to indict, but I have told you that if you seek to invoke this proof paradox, a sophisticated doping regimen cannot possibly be caught, therefore you have approved of a doping enforcement that is actually not an enforcement, the loopholes are too loopy.

its one of Zeno's paradoxesesesesessssss

or or or, you can seek other methods. I know you are potting the pornography method. ergo "I know it when I see it". But without said pornography method, we have to defer to the Armstrong of the peloton and let their reign run without asserting any sentient thought or awareness. nope, sorry, cant do that.
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
Have you been smoking, BC? :D

Armstrong's sophisticated doping programme was caught without a positive test ;) I happen to think that Froome's day will come too, sooner or later. I think that, but I don't know it. I think it won't be via a positive test either. Retrospective testing years later or a leak maybe. A drunken/stoned angry maltweet from Bradley, who knows. I don't know this, but I think it.
 
Re: Re:

There is a difference between being sure and being able to prove something
When someone is obviously drunk, you don't say "well I suspect he's drunk, but until I get my hands on a blood test I can't be certain about it"
Nope, you know
Just like some people know that riders x and y are doped[/quote]
---------------------------------------------


It was the case of Santambroglio, all the world inside cycling knew that, but he need to be proven anyway.
But is not the case of SKY or any of his members.
 
Re:

wendybnt said:
Have you been smoking, BC? :D

Armstrong's sophisticated doping programme was caught without a positive test ;) I happen to think that Froome's day will come too, sooner or later. I think that, but I don't know it. I think it won't be via a positive test either. Retrospective testing years later or a leak maybe. A drunken/stoned angry maltweet from Bradley, who knows. I don't know this, but I think it.

Of course is he is dope, we will know how we know a lot about the past and his life will be a nightmare. But we are in an era when you dont need to dope to win.n And the numbers respect the past era talk by itself.
 
Re:

wendybnt said:
Disagree. None of you know, even if you pretend that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.

People who have seen it all and followed the sport for many years know the signs. People says they know because they haven't been wrong this far. The eye-test is simply the best judge, everything else is fairytales for beliebers in dire need of a national hero.

Froome is not "probably" the most suspicious at "the moment". He is the most suspicious in the history of cycling since 2012 winner and former teammate Bradley Wiggins. We have many odd figures in cycling who have rocketed a couple of seasons but none coming from virtually nowhere to win Tour de France twice. In post-Lance era he is the ultimate spat in the face. Probably here to serve triple roles as Ruperts homeboy, a social experiment on how much cycling fan could endure and a posterboy for the chemical industries how talentless you could be and win with chemicals. I have not ruled out that this is some form of live reality show like "biggest loser" turned winner either.
 

TRENDING THREADS