Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 860 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Froome is on the strongest dope of all. The free-for-all given from the UCI to do as he pleases, while the others actually have to worry about not tripping any wires.

Incidentally a formula that would have worked for Lance too had it not been for all those pesky, meddling kids!
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
kwikki said:
SeriousSam said:
Another Tour bagged by having by far the most power in the climbs and time trials. It's likely the 5th year in a row now he's at this level of performance, and none other than historic ultradropers Armstrong and Indurain have done it.

It really is mind boggling how anyone can believe he isn't doped to the eyeballs
Err.....newsflash....it's been that way since I can remember, which is longer than I like to think.

Of course he is doped to the eyeballs. Anybody in the top ten has to just to qualify being there.

Your attempt to relativise is duly noted, but he's obviously having his performances enhanced by doping much more than anyone else in the top 10. The biggest, most comical doper of them all.

And no, being this dominant in both disciplines isn't how every Tour is won.
So by the further powers of logical deduction you hate him more than the other dopers. Are they ok because they dope, but not as much as the winning rider?

Do you think they should all dope a bit more so that they beat the the overly doped Froome? Oh wait....I can see a problem there...
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re:

Saint Unix said:
Froome is on the strongest dope of all. The free-for-all given from the UCI to do as he pleases, while the others actually have to worry about not tripping any wires.

Incidentally a formula that have worked for Lance too had it not been for all those pesky, meddling kids!
You'd better hope that Yates signs for Sky pronto, otherwise that's that little theory ought of the window
 
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
DFA123 said:
kwikki said:
Funnily enough, yes, I have seen them race. I've to see Froome manage the insane mountain breakaway that others did in the past, Coppi being a great example. Froome managed 6 seconds on the flat stage, another tiny handful on the descent, and a few seconds yesterday. In the olden days it was minutes.
Well Coppi was just from a completely different era and not comparable. Armstrong and Indurain are from the same era - doping-wise and in terms of team strength - and Froome's performances are at least up there with those two.

I see above that you think Froome is doping. What do you think he is on; transfusions and EPO or something newer and more centered around weight-loss, or a combination? Do you think he's doing the same as all other riders in the top 10 or would you say it's not a level playing field?
Yeah....fatal flaw....all the current riders are from the same era. So, by the power of logical deduction you must be about to claim that the others are all clean, otherwise what is your point?

(Caveat: I've not long come back from a hard interval session. I'm in a roidless rage. Please imagine some lovely kittens when reading my posts :D )
My point is, what are you doing in this thread? You say you think Froome is doping, but respond to anyone trying to discuss that with some mealy mouthed posts about how everyone is doing it and how he it's part of the sport. This is Froome's thread in the clinic, what do you expect to find here? We're talking about him, not the other riders in the top 10 - and he is the most ridiculously dominant rider we have seen, certainly since Armstrong.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
OK, it's Friday, and I have to answer the call to prayers (liquid variety).

Great banter, and thanks for keeping it pleasant.

Catch up another time.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
kwikki said:
DFA123 said:
kwikki said:
Funnily enough, yes, I have seen them race. I've to see Froome manage the insane mountain breakaway that others did in the past, Coppi being a great example. Froome managed 6 seconds on the flat stage, another tiny handful on the descent, and a few seconds yesterday. In the olden days it was minutes.
Well Coppi was just from a completely different era and not comparable. Armstrong and Indurain are from the same era - doping-wise and in terms of team strength - and Froome's performances are at least up there with those two.

I see above that you think Froome is doping. What do you think he is on; transfusions and EPO or something newer and more centered around weight-loss, or a combination? Do you think he's doing the same as all other riders in the top 10 or would you say it's not a level playing field?
Yeah....fatal flaw....all the current riders are from the same era. So, by the power of logical deduction you must be about to claim that the others are all clean, otherwise what is your point?

(Caveat: I've not long come back from a hard interval session. I'm in a roidless rage. Please imagine some lovely kittens when reading my posts :D )
My point is, what are you doing in this thread? You say you think Froome is doping, but respond to anyone trying to discuss that with some mealy mouthed posts about how everyone is doing it and how he it's part of the sport. This is Froome's thread in the clinic, what do you expect to find here? We're talking about him, not the other riders in the top 10 - and he is the most ridiculously dominant rider we have seen, certainly since Armstrong.
It's OK, you don't have to address the points I raise about your position if you don't want to. But just repeating your unsubstantiated point during look good, to me at least.

Have a great weekend. :)
 
Re:

kwikki said:
Don't worry, Simoni.

If it had been Quintana running up the road with Froome chasing from behind hanging off a vehicle do you think sniper & Co would be saying the same thing?

Not a chance.

Reason blinded by hate.

they wouldnt/couldnt be saying anything because the forum would´ve crashed
;)
 
Oct 10, 2012
1,426
0
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
ontheroad said:
Froome can now afford to tone it down again and my prediction is that he will tone it down again and drop a few token seconds in the mountains in the last week to humanise his performance.

Incidentally if the time from yesterday had stood he would still be in yellow, would still have coasted the tour and he could have received some badly needed positive PR (skys modus operandi) and sympathy out of the incident. Instead both Froome and Sky came out of yesterdays incident looking like they are in collusion with the authorities and have produced another 'not normal' performance today blowing the main GC contenders out of the water.
Ahh yes, the catch all clause. If he rides fast...he's doping. If he rides slower....he's 'toning it down to__________ <insert wild conspiracy theory here>

Get over it. He's a winner. A dirty winner, but I'm sure you'll agree that is preferable to being a dirty loser.
I'll hold my hands up if I'm wrong but lets wait and see. Sky are obsessed with PR and image and they will want to avoid the likely doping accusations that goes alongside the continual crushing of all your main opponents. The history of Froome's previous 2 tour wins has seen him weaken in the last week when the race was won after intense media scrutiny around doping accusations.

He will have to face these questions again now since but for a crash and team orders he could be closing in on 5 in a row of titles with utter domination in the process. He will never be the most popular of winners to the unfathomable transformation at 26. He is riding time trials like a 75kg rider and cycling up mountains like a 55kg all in the style not befitting of poster boy of the sport. To me he has made a complete mockery of the race.

Why would you think I agree that it is preferable that he is a dirty winner than a dirty loser? I'd rather he was a clean loser which is what he originally was.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
SeriousSam said:
kwikki said:
SeriousSam said:
Another Tour bagged by having by far the most power in the climbs and time trials. It's likely the 5th year in a row now he's at this level of performance, and none other than historic ultradropers Armstrong and Indurain have done it.

It really is mind boggling how anyone can believe he isn't doped to the eyeballs
Err.....newsflash....it's been that way since I can remember, which is longer than I like to think.

Of course he is doped to the eyeballs. Anybody in the top ten has to just to qualify being there.

Your attempt to relativise is duly noted, but he's obviously having his performances enhanced by doping much more than anyone else in the top 10. The biggest, most comical doper of them all.

And no, being this dominant in both disciplines isn't how every Tour is won.
So by the further powers of logical deduction you hate him more than the other dopers. Are they ok because they dope, but not as much as the winning rider?

Do you think they should all dope a bit more so that they beat the the overly doped Froome? Oh wait....I can see a problem there...
lol

Posters come and go, but there's seemingly always one of those 'but but but everyone is doping, why do u hate chris" types at the ready
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Yeah, probably because it's a point you can't answer.

(I really am going now....keep it peaceful Sam)
 
Jun 18, 2011
49
0
0
Not responding to any thought in particular, just voicing my opinion about Froome's dominance/ advantages...

The only place someone like Nairo is going to be superior to Froome is in w/kg. To use that to his advantage, Nairo needs a long, one-on-one ascent where the slight differential results in a slowly expanding gap. If you are Froome, how do you deal with that?

1. Build a train that shortens the fight to just a few kilometers of one-on-one where 5 minute threshold means more than 20 minute to hour threshold.
3. Use every trick available, (legal, questionable, illegal), to minimize the w/kg disadvantage.
2. Grab time here and there in the non-TT, non-climbing portions of the race that favor your overall power advantage. Build up enough to counter the 30 seconds Nairo might pick up on the MTFs.
3. Use your power advantage to dominate the TT.
4. Get a lead early, so that when you finally are isolated with Nairo, that you only need to follow his wheel, thereby negating his w/kg advantage, and potentially even crushing him in the last 2k as he burns himself trying.
5. Don't crash.

This forces Nairo to dominate the mountains, hide well from the wind, not crash, beat the Sky Train, TT out of his mind, or hope for a jour sans from Froome to have any chance. Less powerful riders have a disadvantage everywhere in cycling except when the road climbs, therefore more chances for bad days.Wind, cobbles, sprints, TTs, accelerations, pushed around by the pellet on itself, TTTs, downhills, 6.8 kg bikes, etc.

It is easier to win the Tour by starting with 475w of sustainable power and 6.2 w/kg than with 400w and 6.3 w/kg. Both require doping in my world view. However the doping and training path to get Froome's numbers is far easier for a much bigger and formally heavier rider. I'm not sure the dope exists to allow Nairo to make up the pure watts advantage to someone who is 10% larger.

For what Nairo Quintana is, he impresses me for how close he does get. It explains how Porte can look so impressive in certain situations vs. Froome, but never actually get close to winning a GT. W/kg will not win the TDF unless total power is also close to that of your rivals. To beat Froome, you need to be within 20-30 watts in total power, and exceed him in w/kg. His training and "supplementation" regime will never allow a rival to be much more powerful but even lighter.

The person who beats Froome in the TDF has close to his raw power and w/kg, but has more inherent natural ability, is better on a bike, etc. Contador and Nibali are the only two currently that seem to have that. Nibali doesn't seem as disciplined in his build up, and Contador gives up too much in raw power when the conditions (cobbles, wind, sprints) demand it.

Smaller stage races and the Giro and Vuelta have fewer advantages for pure power, leveling the playing field for the Quintanas, Portes, Arus, etc. The Tour is a wide open racetrack by comparison.
 
Sep 21, 2012
77
0
0
Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but...Has there been much talk about about Froome's efforts on the Mavic bike yesterday? Watching him toiling up Ventoux was like a nostalgic flashback to the infamous 2009 Giro zig zag.

(23.46)...
http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/dailymotion/?title=Last+5+Km+of+Stage+12&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=x4k8alt&yr=2016

I know people are saying that the pedals/cleats were all wrong but it just looked like he had absolutely no power in his legs at all. Then, as soon as Sky got a bike to him he was immediately a beast again. I had to laugh when Phil says "It's like the bike isn't even working" given all the recent speculation about motors. Is it crazy to think, "ah, so that's him without a motor"? It'd be a relief to discover that the world wasn't actually turned on its head in August 2011 and even though we now live in Biff Tannen's Pleasure World we can at least rest assured that donkeys stay donkeys.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re:

kwikki said:
Yeah, probably because it's a point you can't answer.

(I really am going now....keep it peaceful Sam)
It's a point that has been answered many times in the past. It's also unrelated to what I was saying, and what you were responding to.

So based on that quick change of topic, I presume you agree that contrary to what you said, Froome riding like Armstrong and Indurian is in fact not how the Tour is always, or even often, won, and that contrary to what you implied, Froome is more doped up than than anyone.

As to your novel question, randomly select a few pages of this thread or the Sky thread and I'm sure you'll see it answered.
 
Why do we hate Froome? Because him and his team have taken the entertainment out of cycling. That's something many other superdopers like of Bertie, Schleck, Vino, Pantani and so on never did. Even Horner's comedy hour over in Spain was hilarious in its own disgusting way. If Sky has it their way, every stage of every race is just brutal, mind-numbing monotony all day long, apart from when Froome hits the motor switch at the very end.
 
Jan 30, 2016
1,048
0
0
Re:

Bag of Guts said:
Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but...Has there been much talk about about Froome's efforts on the Mavic bike yesterday? Watching him toiling up Ventoux was like a nostalgic flashback to the infamous 2009 Giro zig zag.

(23.46)...
http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/dailymotion/?title=Last+5+Km+of+Stage+12&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=x4k8alt&yr=2016

I know people are saying that the pedals/cleats were all wrong but it just looked like he had absolutely no power in his legs at all. Then, as soon as Sky got a bike to him he was immediately a beast again. I had to laugh when Phil says "It's like the bike isn't even working" given all the recent speculation about motors. Is it crazy to think, "ah, so that's him without a motor"? It'd be a relief to discover that the world wasn't actually turned on its head in August 2011 and even though we now live in Biff Tannen's Pleasure World we can at least rest assured that donkeys stay donkeys.
I also thought he should have been riding faster even though he had the wrong pedals and sadle height. Also when a team member passed with correct pedals he did not thake his bike but decided to wait for his own bike.
 
Re:

Saint Unix said:
Why do we hate Froome? Because him and his team have taken the entertainment out of cycling. That's something many other superdopers like of Bertie, Schleck, Vino, Pantani and so on never did. Even Horner's comedy hour over in Spain was hilarious in its own disgusting way. If Sky has it their way, ever stage of every race just brutal, mind-numbing monotony all day long, apart from when Froome hits the motor switch at the very end.
Agreed. Schleck, Vino and Pantani were vulnerable - they had bad days and were definitely beatable. And they tried ridiculous things mostly to entertain, not to underline their dominance. Contador was less vulnerable at his peak, but he carried the Armstrong-slayer status for a long time which made him fresh and more popular, plus he leaned far less on his team to suck the life out of the race.

Froome's style is akin to the worst kind of dopers - the Armstrongs or Indurains. Just sucking all the life out of what should be the best cycling event of the season. Like Armstrong, he occasionally goes on ridiculous attacks purely to underline his dominance and kill any hopes of the opposition.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ***.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have *** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Re:

Rob27172 said:
To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

Sums it up nicely for me.

Just out of interest can anyone tell me something that Sky have brought to the sport that is a brand new method of training etc.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Agreed. Schleck, Vino and Pantani were vulnerable - they had bad days and were definitely beatable. And they tried ridiculous things mostly to entertain, not to underline their dominance. Contador was less vulnerable at his peak, but he carried the Armstrong-slayer status for a long time which made him fresh and more popular, plus he leaned far less on his team to suck the life out of the race.

Froome's style is akin to the worst kind of dopers - the Armstrongs or Indurains. Just sucking all the life out of what should be the best cycling event of the season. Like Armstrong, he occasionally goes on ridiculous attacks purely to underline his dominance and kill any hopes of the opposition.
Peak Contador won the Tour while having to work more against his own team than the rest of the peloton. Even in his less powerful recent years he tries the occasional crazy stunt to win a race, like with his solo attack up Passo Lanciano at the 2014 Tirreno where he went with more than 30km left to ride and put almost two minutes into every other GC rider.

Contador is - apart from all the doping - a proper champion. A rider who will do anything within his own capabilities as a bike rider to win a race. Riding with a fever on the hottest day of the Tour? He'll fight until there's nothing left in the tank. Riding with a broken leg? He'll still fight. At the end of the day, he will do anything within his physical capabilities as a rider to win, and if it doesn't quite cut it, at least he'll have tried his best. No hiding behind the team and running to the officials when things go awry.

Yes, he's a doper and has done nothing to help clean up the sport, but I have a lot of respect for Contador as a proper bike riding hard man. Same goes for Tyler Hamilton. They will turn the pedals until every ounce of sense and logic tells them not to, and then they'll turn the pedals some more. I even gained a little respect for Froome after he went full Obree on the descent a few days ago. The fans want to see death-defying racing, ill-advised attacks from far out and a lot of pain and suffering. Sky's machine-like train riding up and down the hills is the opposite of that, even if the riders in different-coloured kits are grimacing like tortured animals behind them.
 
Oct 10, 2012
1,426
0
0
A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.
 
Re:

ontheroad said:
A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.
Do you have a link or a screen shot of the Walsh filing?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
ontheroad said:
A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.
Do you have a link or a screen shot of the Walsh filing?
It is true, doping pays!
 
Jul 15, 2016
4
0
0
Re:

Rob27172 said:
To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.
This. Very nice summing up why Sky is the worst thing that happened cycling since Lance.

Also, I would like to think that after many years of following cycling you somehow get a feeling of the level of talent certain riders have. How do they behave mentally, how did they perform as young riders etc. Froome has not displayed many signs of being a great talent. He was signed by the "classic" doping team Barloworld and showed nothing. Sky has sure found ways to groom all the potential in Chris Froome...

My fear is that DB and the rest of Sky management will reach a new state of über-hubris and decide to take on a new project just to show "what science and strength of will can take you", i.e. take a more or less random casual rider and turn him into a world-beater.

Sagan, Contador, Nibali etc would have been great riders even in a doping free environment as they have racing mentality and also are very complete cyclists (see results in one-day races for examples). Froome would still be doing the zig zag in the mountains....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS