Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

 

[pastronef]

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

oh, that´s the bottom line. and it is easy. I know taht, you know that.

but why does the clinic/twitter care so much about clueless british fans, and their home media?
it´s wasted time staring at Froome´s cheeks in Japan saying wow he´s fat!
we know it´s a lie. move on.
the % of british followers is so little in the cycling fans world
the believers who buy the books and rant about dirty astana, will never understand

and more importantly I DO NOT FEEL THE URGE to make them understand and explain them they´re wrong and I am right
and if they brake my balls with their narrative, let´em talk, ignore them.
that´s my personal point of view
maybe I care less
maybe I dont want to analyze every line on Froome´s or Thomas´ book and say they wrong they bullshite

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

 

[Campervan man]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

Personally I don't think Froome was terrible as a young pro, a 30th in a giro and 80th in his first Tour show talent. But here's the thing the turnaround from a half decent pro of talent sure to the number 1 climber by the Vuelta 2011 when never previously showing anything near that level is a shocking transformation. It's not evenly remotely believable,if slowly across 2/3 seasons they'd have brought him along through marginal gains some people may have been a lot less sceptical. But Froome went straight for the jugular, and now bemoans the vile spat at him roadside. Maybe there's a slight Lance hangover but still you get what you deserve. On a personal level I save hundreds or even thousands of pounds to attend cycling events and feel duped by any cheaters. It's a sad state cycling and Froome/Sky sit at the top, I'm obviously not immature enough to spit at riders etc, but the hate to Froome is something I've never personally seen in over 15 years of attendance. The transformation is/was absurd and the pleasure he takes from that within must feel somewhat empty. No real love from roadside fans other than a new wave of fans that will drift away as fast as he rose to prominence in Spain.

Enjoy it while you can, as it won't last long these things never do.

Working with Geert Leindeers as Gillian said is the most obvious reason for Sky's turnaround ever. It'll never be explained away as that's impossible. Geert made so many riders transform before Sky all through dope. Same set up with Sky.

 

[harryh]

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean.

Is it possible even by doping? I think he's changeling. But I love the way he races.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

but why does the clinic/twitter care so much about clueless british fans, and their home media?
it´s wasted time staring at Froome´s cheeks in Japan saying wow he´s fat!
we know it´s a lie. move on.
the % of british followers is so little in the cycling fans world
the believers who buy the books and rant about dirty astana, will never understand

and more importantly I DO NOT FEEL THE URGE to make them understand and explain them they´re wrong and I am right
and if they brake my balls with their narrative, let´em talk, ignore them.
that´s my personal point of view
maybe I care less
maybe I dont want to analyze every line on Froome´s or Thomas´ book and say they wrong they bullshite

Good question Pastro.

You could also ask yourself the question why ''all those brits'' are doing this.

Why the clueless cycling media doing it is obvious off course; dont bite the hand that feeds you.

Why are the ordinary Brits buying this stuff?

Guess they never saw the transformation of the likes of Mauro Gianetti and his likes?

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

Personally I don't think Froome was terrible as a young pro, a 30th in a giro and 80th in his first Tour show talent. But here's the thing the turnaround from a half decent pro of talent sure to the number 1 climber by the Vuelta 2011 when never previously showing anything near that level is a shocking transformation. It's not evenly remotely believable,if slowly across 2/3 seasons they'd have brought him along through marginal gains some people may have been a lot less sceptical. But Froome went straight for the jugular, and now bemoans the vile spat at him roadside. Maybe there's a slight Lance hangover but still you get what you deserve. On a personal level I save hundreds or even thousands of pounds to attend cycling events and feel duped by any cheaters. It's a sad state cycling and Froome/Sky sit at the top, I'm obviously not immature enough to spit at riders etc, but the hate to Froome is something I've never personally seen in over 15 years of attendance. The transformation is/was absurd and the pleasure he takes from that within must feel somewhat empty. No real love from roadside fans other than a new wave of fans that will drift away as fast as he rose to prominence in Spain.

Enjoy it while you can, as it won't last long these things never do.

Working with Geert Leindeers as Gillian said is the most obvious reason for Sky's turnaround ever. It'll never be explained away as that's impossible. Geert made so many riders transform before Sky all through dope. Same set up with Sky.

Yes, Leindeers raises red flags and to have hired him asks more questions of Sky, which were reported by the British media, so let's drop the whole British media are on the Team Sky bandwagon. Some are, of course, but some know that something is up with Team Sky but due to Sky's likely influence [they are a Murdoch entity, of course] are unlikely to raise a whole spectacle.
Team Sky believe too much in their own hype. They should have learned how other teams do it by keeping silent about internal doping such as Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff who have learned through the years: once a riders gets popped, then it was done by the rider not by the team. I guess someone smart over at Sky thought if we tell the world we are doing all these great and innovative things with the riders then we can distract from doping claims. The problem was that some riders "improved" too much so they need to hype up their "marginal gains" strategy.

 

[pastronef]

Yes, Leindeers raises red flags and to have hired him asks more questions of Sky, which were reported by the British media, so let's drop the whole British media are on the Team Sky bandwagon. Some are, of course, but some know that something is up with Team Sky but due to Sky's likely influence [they are a Murdoch entity, of course] are unlikely to raise a whole spectacle.
Team Sky believe too much in their own hype. They should have learned how other teams do it by keeping silent about internal doping such as Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff who have learned through the years: once a riders gets popped, then it was done by the rider not by the team. I guess someone smart over at Sky thought if we tell the world we are doing all these great and innovative things with the riders then we can distract from doping claims. The problem was that some riders "improved" too much so they need to hype up their "marginal gains" strategy.

they could not keep silent, they HAD to spread their narrative about clean cycling, ZTP, new deal team, innovation. it was essential for the british public in 2010. they started that way because there wasn't any other way to do it. the fans had to believe in them, in something more than a normal cycling team. and that is wrong, we know it
that maybe is what irks most of their detractors

here in Italy I am not very much into it, fans and journos obviously dont care about Sky, neither newspapers write about them so maybe that's why I am not so obsessed with them

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Next year WITH Chris and 5 bottles of champagne for 5K?

 

[red_flanders]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

You may be missing it, but your explanation here relies on believing several of the talking points of the Sky mythology. The guy had been racing in European development squads for years. No, it's not possible to magically go from pack fodder to world-beater clean. it's not. Yes, your "not legally proven" is exactly the same in use and in context as "never tested positive". It is all self-delusion to imagine there's any chance this was done without assistance. The "all the other dopers are just as bad" qualification betrays that you know this to be true. it's the final way out–-when it is proven legally you can tell yourself (or us, whichever seems to be motivating this) that your doper isn't any worse than the others.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

You may be missing it, but your explanation here relies on believing several of the talking points of the Sky mythology. The guy had been racing in European development squads for years. No, it's not possible to magically go from pack fodder to world-beater clean. it's not. Yes, your "not legally proven" is exactly the same in use and in context as "never tested positive". It is all self-delusion to imagine there's any chance this was done without assistance. The "all the other dopers are just as bad" qualification betrays that you know this to be true. it's the final way out–-when it is proven legally you can tell yourself (or us, whichever seems to be motivating this) that your doper isn't any worse than the others.

yes, we know it, he knows, you know.
I think we all know that here in the clinic.

and you are also right, one doper is not worse than the others.
you can do 1 blood bag because you are a great rider when clean, and race against a slow rider who does 2 blood bags to go that fast
both of the riders dope.
and to the bots who believe Froome/Sky do it clean (or want to believe) : let'em believe. cheer for your fav doper against froome/sky and chill.

 

[pastronef]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-refused-to-apply-for-tue-at-tour-de-france-despite-illness/

tue-froome-tour

all right guys unleash your dawgs

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-refused-to-apply-for-tue-at-tour-de-france-despite-illness/

tue-froome-tour

all right guys unleash your dawgs

Couldnt care less, just this: when you are as sick as he claimes he was I find it incredible he climbs better/faster in w/k than former real champions like Hinault/Fignon/LeMond/Lucho.

Just my 4 pennies

 

[mrhender]

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

 

[thehog]

Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

Considering how dumb our froomey is it's a wonder he didn't suffocate himself.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

Considering how dumb our froomey is it's a wonder he didn't suffocate himself.

Poor guy. Has asthma and a cold. Simple remedy; hold your breath. Does get a little tricky after about 2 minutes but holding on for a 4 hour stage going up mountains would be a little tough without breathing.

But Sky can do amazing things, like defying the basic human requirement for oxygen.

What will they think of next at Sky HQ?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

But Sky can do amazing things, like defying the basic human requirement for oxygen.

What will they think of next at Sky HQ?

Climbing faster than the Great Laurent Fignon while holding your breath is the new marginal gain.

But I bet Laurent in his time was just a lazy cyclist doing nothing untill July.

Mmmmh...

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

Considering how dumb our froomey is it's a wonder he didn't suffocate himself.

Poor guy. Has asthma and a cold. Simple remedy; hold your breath. Does get a little tricky after about 2 minutes but holding on for a 4 hour stage going up mountains would be a little tough without breathing.

But Sky can do amazing things, like defying the basic human requirement for oxygen.

What will they think of next at Sky HQ?

bullshyz in the posts surpassing the bullshyz in the newspaper
yes, like clean performances surpassing the doped ones

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

Next year Froome will do some 1000 watt attacks while holding his breath and having a 140 heartrate.

 

[the sceptic]

Interesting that Dawg can win the tour while barely being able to breathe, but when he had badzilla he could barely keep up with the gruppetto

 

[Benotti69]

The Clear ‏@vayerism 2 hours ago

Asthma and bilzahia - not compatible

Marginal gains and no athlete tests - not compatible

Climbing alpe d'huez and illness - not compatible

The Froome story, so far.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Interesting that Dawg can win the tour while barely being able to breathe, but when he had badzilla he could barely keep up with the gruppetto

Very good observation. At Sky HQ they need the whiteboard of lies so they can keep up with their own BS.

 

[djpbaltimore]

When I am out in public or around someone else, I will often hold my breath for a few seconds when I feel a coughing fit coming on. I think people are making too much of a meal out of that one little line. It is not like he was holding his breath while climbing Alpe d'Huez. By the context of the quote, it probably happened at the beginning of the stages and in sections where the pace was not 100%.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Funny that he somehow knew a TUE would be leaked.

Better to be known as the honest superman, rejectiing any help.

On top of that, he was willing to jeopardize maillott jaune just to avoid potential criticism.

makes sense...

Froome resorted to holding his breath so as not to cough in front of his rivals.

Ummmm, OK, holding your breath wouldn't look very suspicious now would it...

I'm still holding my breath that froome will do that v02 max test.