Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 810 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 28, 2015
38
0
0
Re:

LeindersGains said:
I have an question for you guys.

Based on the leaked SRM files, Froome's attack on Puerto de San Lorenzo was a lot harder in terms for power and a couple of seconds longer than the Mont Ventoux attack.

But Contador was dropped like a stone on Mont Ventoux while easily being able to hang on the Puerto de San Lorenzo stage. Harder pace in the Ventoux stage?
Hard to compare, because Ventoux 2013 is a SRM file and San Lorenzo's from a Stage sensor.
But yes, in Vuelta he looks a few watts stronger than Ventoux but Contador beats him easily.
My take is he didn't go all out on Ventoux in 2013, you can see him recovering behind Nairito several times, HR getting down to 149, talking on the radio...
 
Re:

LeindersGains said:
I have an question for you guys.

Based on the leaked SRM files, Froome's attack on Puerto de San Lorenzo was a lot harder in terms for power and a couple of seconds longer than the Mont Ventoux attack.

But Contador was dropped like a stone on Mont Ventoux while easily being able to hang on the Puerto de San Lorenzo stage. Harder pace in the Ventoux stage?
Maybe Alberto's shape is the key to solving this riddle :p
 
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
 
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
Same numbers my arse. 2009 Contador was breaking the sound barrier uphill. Climbing times don't lie.
 
Re:

LeindersGains said:
I have an question for you guys.

Based on the leaked SRM files, Froome's attack on Puerto de San Lorenzo was a lot harder in terms for power and a couple of seconds longer than the Mont Ventoux attack.

But Contador was dropped like a stone on Mont Ventoux while easily being able to hang on the Puerto de San Lorenzo stage. Harder pace in the Ventoux stage?
That Ventoux stage was raced at an insane pace right up to the foot of the climb and it wasn't short either at 224km.

It was a hot day too IIRC
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

LeindersGains said:
I have an question for you guys.

Based on the leaked SRM files, Froome's attack on Puerto de San Lorenzo was a lot harder in terms for power and a couple of seconds longer than the Mont Ventoux attack.

But Contador was dropped like a stone on Mont Ventoux while easily being able to hang on the Puerto de San Lorenzo stage. Harder pace in the Ventoux stage?
but the road and 21 days aint a sports science lab with an ergo. Its the Tour de France, on hot-pour, tarmac and lime, the asphalt. It aint a lab test. It is a sport on the road.

Like I spoke to Martin Vinnicombe over losing the gold medal in the 1km tt on the track sprint at the Olympics by a couple of tenths of a second (coulda been a few hundredths, in reality, this is zero difference, it can all come down, well it does, it does all come down to random variables at this level, and on which side of bed you got out on that morning (ie. your circadian rhythm).

There are variables Froome and Contador cannot control, as much as Brailsford and Contador and Froome would have you believe. ok, maybe less Contador... it wont be decided by your FTP in the lab nor on the powermeter...

It is the circadian rhythm* of variables. *thats a metaphor. The rhythym will have random chance built into an atomic level, and Brailsford would be centuries being able to control those variables on such a level, as much as he likes bring his campers for LRP and others for the marginal gains.
 
Sep 8, 2009
15,305
1
0
Re:

GuyIncognito said:
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
2013 tour was the weakest alberto ever in terms of uphill speed

And yes it's true about 2014 vuelta. Alberto back to his best days and froome close or maybe equal as strong as in 2013 tdf

Do not forget that on ventoux they arrived tired at the base, they arrived one hour quicker than the fastest schedule.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re: Re:

jens_attacks said:
GuyIncognito said:
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
2013 tour was the weakest alberto ever in terms of uphill speed

And yes it's true about 2014 vuelta. Alberto back to his best days and froome close or maybe equal as strong as in 2013 tdf

Do not forget that on ventoux they arrived tired at the base, they arrived one hour quicker than the fastest schedule.
Contador is 33 years old. He SHOULD be declining in performance. He may or may not win another GT, but unless he manipulates his results with pharmaceuticals he shouldn't dominate like he used to.

John Swanson
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
It is interesting that Jeroen Swart thinks Froome has suffered 'abuse'. If he doesn't mean PED abuse, which i believe he doesn't, then he has a very warped sense of what consitutes abuse!

This is pro-cycling. I think Swart needs to educate himself on the history of the sport. Doping is a part of the culture of the sport. When an athlete goes through a gigantic transformation at the same time the 7 time TdF winner admits to doping for those wins, then every winner is going to be questioned about doping. If Froome is not happy about that then he can do a number of things. He can stop. He can refuse to talk to the press. He can do what other winners have done, deny, deny, deny continue to win until caught while racing or after or he can release every scarp of information relating to him and answer every single question related to performance. This try to appease cycling fans with half arsed tests and some information just adds to the doubt. Kimmage told Froome what to do. He ignored it. Still trying to play a PR game. Well that in pro cycling can only mean one thing. Doping.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
jens_attacks said:
GuyIncognito said:
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
2013 tour was the weakest alberto ever in terms of uphill speed

And yes it's true about 2014 vuelta. Alberto back to his best days and froome close or maybe equal as strong as in 2013 tdf

Do not forget that on ventoux they arrived tired at the base, they arrived one hour quicker than the fastest schedule.
Contador is 33 years old. He SHOULD be declining in performance. He may or may not win another GT, but unless he manipulates his results with pharmaceuticals he shouldn't dominate like he used to.

John Swanson
sounds like Valverde, only he's 35 and still better and stronger than ever...
 
Re: Re:

Archibald said:
ScienceIsCool said:
jens_attacks said:
GuyIncognito said:
Definitely explained by Contador's form.
Contador said earlier this year that the whole reason he stopped training by feel and submitted to De Jongh's training plans is that in 2013 he was doing the same numbers as 2009 and that was no longer good enough.

He claims this is because training methods evolve. Regardless of what we may think of that, even Contador admits his numbers were far far better in 2014.
2013 tour was the weakest alberto ever in terms of uphill speed

And yes it's true about 2014 vuelta. Alberto back to his best days and froome close or maybe equal as strong as in 2013 tdf

Do not forget that on ventoux they arrived tired at the base, they arrived one hour quicker than the fastest schedule.
Contador is 33 years old. He SHOULD be declining in performance. He may or may not win another GT, but unless he manipulates his results with pharmaceuticals he shouldn't dominate like he used to.

John Swanson
sounds like Valverde, only he's 35 and still better and stronger than ever...
I honestly think that Valverde is seriously close to the rider he was 05-07. In the classics at least.
 
Jun 4, 2015
499
0
0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/chris-froome/12054551/BBC-SPOTY-2015-Chris-Froome-rode-through-fire-like-a-true-professional-writes-Geraint-Thomas.html

"This is the Tour de France we are talking about. It took 100 years for a Brit to win it. Just because we have had three wins in four years doesn't mean it is getting easier."

Seeing as Brit's don't dope, they never have, and the rest of the world no longer dope because it's the 'new generation', surely it should be getting a tincy wincy bit easier now Geraint?
 
Merckx index said:
Nope. The number of Froome supporters who post in the Clinic may be a small minority, but in the world at large they aren’t, and I don’t know anyone in the Clinic who thinks they are. If they really were, the Clinic wouldn’t spend so much effort in arguing with them. Elsewhere in CN forums, there are all kinds of crank views expressed, and no one spends much time arguing with them just because they are in such a minority.
.
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.

If you look at cycling's West European heartland where cycling is actually a major sport not something only a few people with cable can tune into, the skepticism is far greater than it is here, but that won't be reflected so much in the anlgophone press where everyone is a friend of Brailsford and wants to get a book contract, nor on forums like this where English people are heavily overrepresented (telling that pretty much all International posters with the exception of Taxus and gooner (allegedly Irish) doubt Froome)

I know from participation on a major Spanish cycling forum that the believers are nearly non existent, and i've heard its the same in Denmark and Holland and other countries.

The clinic responds to the - sky won by inventing marginal gains view, not because they are a majority but because they have a monopoly of the press meaning that opinion gets spread the loudest.
there are all kinds of crank views expressed, and no one spends much time arguing with them just because they are in such a minority.
Disagree. When jspear denies evolution for example, he is 1 poster but there are usually 3 or 4 who respond.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re:

The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.

If you look at cycling's West European heartland where cycling is actually a major sport not something only a few people with cable can tune into, the skepticism is far greater than it is here, but that won't be reflected so much in the anlgophone press where everyone is a friend of Brailsford and wants to get a book contract, nor on forums like this where English people are heavily overrepresented (telling that pretty much all International posters with the exception of Taxus and gooner (allegedly Irish) doubt Froome)

I know from participation on a major Spanish cycling forum that the believers are nearly non existent, and i've heard its the same in Denmark and Holland and other countries.

The clinic responds to the - sky won by inventing marginal gains view, not because they are a majority but because they have a monopoly of the press meaning that opinion gets spread the loudest.
Blind nationalism, eh? Since it applies to the 99% you'll have no trouble backing-up that nasty insult with some examples?

You might want to reflect on your personal objectivity in the light of recent events. Ross Tucker - seemingly the sceptics house scientist - says that Froome is 'at the upper end of what is plausible with known physiology', and based on the 2007 lab tests we 'know' that the upper end is plausible for Froome. If he always had the engine, it seems to me your case has been shredded. Thoughts?
 
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.

If you look at cycling's West European heartland where cycling is actually a major sport not something only a few people with cable can tune into, the skepticism is far greater than it is here, but that won't be reflected so much in the anlgophone press where everyone is a friend of Brailsford and wants to get a book contract, nor on forums like this where English people are heavily overrepresented (telling that pretty much all International posters with the exception of Taxus and gooner (allegedly Irish) doubt Froome)

I know from participation on a major Spanish cycling forum that the believers are nearly non existent, and i've heard its the same in Denmark and Holland and other countries.

The clinic responds to the - sky won by inventing marginal gains view, not because they are a majority but because they have a monopoly of the press meaning that opinion gets spread the loudest.
Blind nationalism, eh? Since it applies to the 99% you'll have no trouble backing-up that nasty insult with some examples?

You might want to reflect on your personal objectivity in the light of recent events. Ross Tucker - seemingly the sceptics house scientist - says that Froome is 'at the upper end of what is plausible with known physiology', and based on the 2007 lab tests we 'know' that the upper end is plausible for Froome. If he always had the engine, it seems to me your case has been shredded. Thoughts?
What is my case?
 
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.

If you look at cycling's West European heartland where cycling is actually a major sport not something only a few people with cable can tune into, the skepticism is far greater than it is here, but that won't be reflected so much in the anlgophone press where everyone is a friend of Brailsford and wants to get a book contract, nor on forums like this where English people are heavily overrepresented (telling that pretty much all International posters with the exception of Taxus and gooner (allegedly Irish) doubt Froome)

I know from participation on a major Spanish cycling forum that the believers are nearly non existent, and i've heard its the same in Denmark and Holland and other countries.

The clinic responds to the - sky won by inventing marginal gains view, not because they are a majority but because they have a monopoly of the press meaning that opinion gets spread the loudest.
Blind nationalism, eh? Since it applies to the 99% you'll have no trouble backing-up that nasty insult with some examples?

You might want to reflect on your personal objectivity in the light of recent events. Ross Tucker - seemingly the sceptics house scientist - says that Froome is 'at the upper end of what is plausible with known physiology', and based on the 2007 lab tests we 'know' that the upper end is plausible for Froome. If he always had the engine, it seems to me your case has been shredded. Thoughts?
Out of interest where did Ross Tucker say that given he said that if Froome is an innocent victim of increased scepticism so be it? I imagine he'd be squealing like a stuffed pig if someone accused him of being pseudo-scientist on a daily basis. According to him it's all pattern matching as that's what humans do, so is he now a neuroscience/AI expert ? haha
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Out of interest where did Ross Tucker say that given he said that if Froome is an innocent victim of increased scepticism so be it? I imagine he'd be squealing like a stuffed pig if someone accused him of being pseudo-scientist on a daily basis. According to him it's all pattern matching as that's what humans do, so is he now a neuroscience/AI expert ? haha
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/677114014246268928
Ross Tucker ‏@Scienceofsport Dec 16
@jazzporridge @JeroenSwart The consistent message is that all the TDF top 5 are at the upper end of what is plausible with known physiology

Tucker and Swart were asked if Froome had ever performed beyond 'known limits'.
 
Re:

The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.
You may be right, but I'd have to see some actual stats before I'd believe that. Obviously, of course, it depends on the population base we use. Probably there is more skepticism of Froome among hard-core fans than among more casual ones.

Also, it seems to me the nationalism angle works both ways. Just as Brits are more likely to be supportive of Froome because they view him as one of their own, people in other countries are likely to be less supportive because he isn't one of their own. Is the support for Contador among Spaniards any less than that for Froome among the British?.So even if Froome supporters are a small minority, that might be a reflection of the fact that native English speakers are a small minority in Europe, not to mention other countries that send riders to pro events.

Disagree. When jspear denies evolution for example, he is 1 poster but there are usually 3 or 4 who respond.
Jspear just proves my point. He doesn't get anywhere near the attention Froome/Sky does. Yes, a few of us occasionally respond to him, but there are no threads devoted just to refuting Creationism, or fundamentalist views in general. Same with Ray Willings, e.g., and his views on 9/11, vaccines, etc., or Echoes, and his interpretations of history. Nobody is exercised enough by any of the views these posters raise to start a thread (let alone the multiple threads we see on Sky and Froome) specifically intended to rebut them.

To be fair, this is a cycling forum, and one wouldn't expect as much debate over non-cycling issues. People in general here are not as interested in debating these things. Still, when someone posts a contrarian view that has widespread social support, he or she does get a great deal of push back. Scott on the U.S. Politics thread is an obvious example. Those of us who disagree with Scott are much more inclined to debate him than to debate someone like Jspear or Ray, not because we think his views are more obviously in error, but because we know that Scott represents a much larger portion of the general population than they do. People with his views have far more influence on government and society than Jspear, et al., do.
 
Feb 22, 2014
779
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
What is my case?
That you 'know' Froome dopes because it's the only explanation for his transformation from pack fodder to GT winner. I couldn't find an appropriate quote to this effect so I apologise in advance if I am misrepresenting your actual views.
 
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.

If you look at cycling's West European heartland where cycling is actually a major sport not something only a few people with cable can tune into, the skepticism is far greater than it is here, but that won't be reflected so much in the anlgophone press where everyone is a friend of Brailsford and wants to get a book contract, nor on forums like this where English people are heavily overrepresented (telling that pretty much all International posters with the exception of Taxus and gooner (allegedly Irish) doubt Froome)

I know from participation on a major Spanish cycling forum that the believers are nearly non existent, and i've heard its the same in Denmark and Holland and other countries.

The clinic responds to the - sky won by inventing marginal gains view, not because they are a majority but because they have a monopoly of the press meaning that opinion gets spread the loudest.
Blind nationalism, eh? Since it applies to the 99% you'll have no trouble backing-up that nasty insult with some examples?
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=40002

Knock yourself out...
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

Ventoux Boar said:
The Hitch said:
What is my case?
That you 'know' Froome dopes because it's the only explanation for his transformation from pack fodder to GT winner. I couldn't find an appropriate quote to this effect so I apologise in advance if I am misrepresenting your actual views.
my position is, he dopes because they all do, and he is merely the best rider in a bunch of doping cyclists at the head of the field. Nothing to do with Chris the individual, he is one of many I am indicting.

Most wish for him to be given special treatment, for wont of evidence... but it is truly risible and treats rational and sentient people as stupid to give Chris the hall-pass
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY