Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Cervelo77]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

Um, I'm assuming your bike gets major scrutiny after winning a stage, no? So unless it's a motor you can teleport into and out of the bike, I just don't see this as practical.

 

[argel]

Re:

lol... right, so... lol!

Thanks for the larfs, Vroooooom!

(I would consider what he did today was full ***, but is it possible to go even more than full ***?)

There are many sticks to beat Froome and Sky with - I don't think him catching Movistar et al napping on a descent is one of them. They screwed that one up.

 

[PremierAndrew]

I'm guessing doping and a motor helped him to get into that aero tuck and pedal at the same time? If you want evidence for doping/motor in his bike, use his stats from Ax 3, Ventoux and PSM. Today's performance was nowhere near as suspicious as those

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

Wait, so now he's moto-doping?

Let's be honest, if Quintana hadn't have sat up and decided to have a drink, that would have gone nowhere. By the time they made a concerted effort, it was too late. Still, descending is arguably one of the few elements of a GT mountain stage where any doping is the least important factor.

 

[kwikki]

Even the most fulltard doped rider still has to have some pretty good skills to beat all the other dopers. Let's not exagerrate, and don't forget that over the last few years Froome has had to learn how to keep up with himself.

 

[LeindersGains]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

Um, I'm assuming your bike gets major scrutiny after winning a stage, no? So unless it's a motor you can teleport into and out of the bike, I just don't see this as practical.

The Tour organizers are pro-doping (including motors). Otherwise, they would have busted a lot of top riders by now.

 

[naviman]

That was fun to watch. Sky with some next level tactics. First Froome inexplicably goes for mountain points over Majka, making the others think he's going for the mountains jersey. Then he does the same over final climb and everyone doesn't think much of it. But instead he goes on the attack leaving everyone else dumbfounded. Absolutely brilliant.

I wonder where are all the people who say sky are boring?

 

[T_S_A_R]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

A motor wouldn't help at all in the long straight descent?

Perhaps to allow you to go into a ridiculous aero position while still pedalling hard?

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

A motor wouldn't help at all in the long straight descent?

Perhaps to allow you to go into a ridiculous aero position while still pedalling hard?

Lol, no. You don't need to pedal hard on a descent. He might be spinning at about 120rpm, but at those kind of speeds he's probably putting out less than 200w. And surely it would be even harder to use a motor in an aero position - which could spin up to a ridiculous RPM which your legs simply couldn't keep up with.

And even if for some ridiculous reason he did have a motor, why wouldn't he use it on either

a) the final part of the climb, to get a bigger gap before the descent, or
b) on the flat final 2km?

Both of those situations would have got far more out of a motor than a descent would have. Such a lazy suggestion to see something unexpected and automatically link it to a motor, without actually thinking about it logically.

 

[T_S_A_R]

You can almost guarantee their isn't going to be a heat cam on the descent so it's possibly the only place to use a motor.

Why didn't he do a Mount Ventoux seated attack to get a gap before the descent?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

Cadence and gearing. A motor doesn't worry about those.

 

[thehog]

Re:

That was fun to watch. Sky with some next level tactics. First Froome inexplicably goes for mountain points over Majka, making the others think he's going for the mountains jersey. Then he does the same over final climb and everyone doesn't think much of it. But instead he goes on the attack leaving everyone else dumbfounded. Absolutely brilliant.

I wonder where are all the people who say sky are boring?

Yes, it's very exciting watching Froome do everything. I think he needs to start going for the sprints though, clearly it's a weak point for Froome. Losing green jersey points to Kittel, Cav & Sagen is not smart riding.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

That was fun to watch. Sky with some next level tactics. First Froome inexplicably goes for mountain points over Majka, making the others think he's going for the mountains jersey. Then he does the same over final climb and everyone doesn't think much of it. But instead he goes on the attack leaving everyone else dumbfounded. Absolutely brilliant.

I wonder where are all the people who say sky are boring?

Yes, it's very exciting watching Froome do everything. I think he needs to start going for the sprints though, clearly it's a weak point for Froome. Losing green jersey points to Kittel, Cav & Sagen is not smart riding.

There's always next year for that, along with a crack at Roubaix

 

[70kmph]

Circus clown :lol:

 

[Fergoose]

Re:

That was fun to watch. Sky with some next level tactics. First Froome inexplicably goes for mountain points over Majka, making the others think he's going for the mountains jersey. Then he does the same over final climb and everyone doesn't think much of it. But instead he goes on the attack leaving everyone else dumbfounded. Absolutely brilliant.

I wonder where are all the people who say sky are boring?

Absolutely. It was all about ego for Brailsford and Froome. I don't think that's a bad thing and whatever is going on with them they deserve enormous credit for what they did today. But as a poster suggested above it was Froome toying with the opposition. I think their actions today show that they are very confident they can essentially win the race tomorrow. I find such confidence a little unsettling.

 

[ontheroad]

Who is Chris Froome??

I believe he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Overly concerned with PR and his own image, it's one of the reasons why he has so many detractors. Pretending to be something he isn't but sometimes the mask slips. The punch on the fan, as with many instances in the past betrays the softly spoken politeness he portrays in interviews. There is an inner rage that exists and I think he is far from being the nice guy image that he wishes to put across. Tweeting support for the French soccer team in French and now tweeting in Spanish about the punch, it's cringe worthy. The Sky PR team is in overdrive and it's the blatant hypocrisy of him and his team that sickens. I think Sky will have been advising him on how to carry himself and they are obsessed with PR and image.

That said it was a brave descent from Froome even if it was one of the ugliest riding styles I've witnessed on a bike (the cadence was insane). The other teams blundered by allowing the gap increase as much as 25 seconds at one stage and Froome will now win this tour by whatever way his team decide they want to win it. If the heat is turned up on the doping accusations they will ease off on the gas again like they did for his 2 previous wins ( to make it look human). He will only go full mutant if the need exists, and today lessens that chance. It's all about controlling the narrative.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

Who is Chris Froome??

I believe he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Overly concerned with PR and his own image, it's one of the reasons why he has so many detractors. Pretending to be something he isn't but sometimes the mask slips. The punch on the fan, as with many instances in the past betrays the softly spoken politeness he portrays in interviews. There is an inner rage that exists and I think he is far from being the nice guy image that he wishes to put across. Tweeting support for the French soccer team in French and now tweeting in Spanish about the punch, it's cringe worthy. The Sky PR team is in overdrive and it's the blatant hypocrisy of him and his team that sickens. I think Sky will have been advising him on how to carry himself and they are obsessed with PR and image.

That said it was a brave descent from Froome even if it was one of the ugliest riding styles I've witnessed on a bike (the cadence was insane). The other teams blundered by allowing the gap increase as much as 25 seconds at one stage and Froome will now win this tour by whatever way his team decide they want to win it. If the heat is turned up on the doping accusations they will ease off on the gas again like they did for his 2 previous wins ( to make it look human). He will only go full mutant if the need exists, and today lessens that chance. It's all about controlling the narrative.

Wonder when it all comes crumbling down for him when he's found to have doped(& most likely still is)? No amount of PR will help him then.

Oh wait, he's "cleans" some will say.....riigghhtt

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

You know better. You know Froomey is "cleans" w/o a trace of doping, just ask his apparently many fans here, they'll swear on their mothers lives he couldn't possibly be doping/ doing something illegal. They pinky swear.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

Yeah, doping & a motor bike had ZERO to do with him winning and doing what he's doing either? He won solely on sheer will & amongst a dirty peloton. Too funny.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Wonderboy was "cleans" man, he was tested 6, 321 times & " never tested positive"...just ask him, he'll tell you.

 

[The Hitch]

I must have misread the profile. I thought it was a 4 climb mountain stage where only the best cyclists in the world where able to hang on till the end. The kind of stage where the non doped Froome historically could barely follow Cavendish

Didn't realize it was actually a 13km mass sprint starting at the top of the mountain and ending at the bottom.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

The channelling of his inner Armstrong continues..........

Armstrong was a skilled descender (see Beloski incident). But he never made a gap the way Froome did downhill. If this isn't the best case for the existence of moto doping, I don't know what is.

This is farcical. A Cat4 rider could easily put out the watts to spin the cranks when you are going downhill on a straight 7% road like that at 70km/h. Froome won because of his weight and his descending technique - a motor would have contributed nothing there. The only time it would have helped was in the flat final 2km - where he actually lost about 10 seconds to the bunch.

Yeah, doping & a motor bike had ZERO to do with him winning and doing what he's doing either? He won solely on sheer will & amongst a dirty peloton. Too funny.

What are you talking about? This is one of the worst straw man arguments I've ever seen; truly horrific comprehension and reasoning. Where has doping been mentioned, let along denied in realtion to his peformance today? It seems very probably that he is doping - I don't think anyone posting in this thread would seriously dispute that.

But using a motor for that downhill attack just makes no sense on any level. It's the kind of ridiculous assertion that damages the credibility of the Clinic and detracts from the much more worthy arguments and allegations.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

two trick pony anyone?

 

[SeriousSam]

Just read the cyclingquotes preview for tomorrow's stage and discovered this gem:

The move may not have been planned but it was definitely a smart one and it shows that Froome is a great tactician. Last year he picked out La Pierre Saint-Martin as the place to win the race because he knew that he could use the steep lower section to get a gap and then use his bigger power to gain time on the tiy climbers in the flatter section near the top. Today he knew that the descent was more about power than technical skills so if he could just get a small advantage, his rouleur skills would again come in handy.

Will the chess master next identify the broad roads of the Champs Elysees as a perfect opportunity to employ his sprinting skills and pull away from Kittel et al?