Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 910 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Classic Sky strategy for this year. Don't go full genius in mountains - save it for the TTs. You won't get some geeks posting mutant w/kg all over the place; you won't have to defend ridiculous images of dropping the best riders in the world with ease. Much simpler to just take minutes out of everyone in a TT and claim it's down to aerodynamics and marginal gains.
 
This was so obviously old school. Stragetically placed intake of fresh blood followed up by full mutant performance, which is completely out of sync with his actual form curve in the race. Today was every bit as mutant as Mont St.Michel, if not more, given the circumstances.

The question now is, if he has another bag left for tomorrow or not.
 
Re:

burning said:
I don't know if this is more insane than Mont Saint Michel, I think that it is not though
I actually think it is crazier, even though he was almost certainly stronger in 2013. The circumstances surrounding todays performance at least make it feel so. In Mont St Michel stage he was fresh, and at the absolute peak form of his season.

Now in the Vuelta its complete opposite. He is at the tail end of his second consequtive GT, having also done two races at the Olympics in between, resulting in no downtime between the two GTs which took away a chance to build up a secondary peak for the latter. Plus his form curve in the last week or so did not exatly show clear improvement. Rather it was on a plateau or on slight decline.

Today was basically a bolt out of the blue, while Mont St Michel performance was predictable to an extent given what he had already shown in that Tour.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
I still don't think cookson and Dave will allow froome to win this vuelta.
They're allowing him to troll quintana and the clinic, but I strongly doubt hes going to go for the win. I hope I'm wrong of course
 
Re: Re:

Põhja Konn said:
burning said:
I don't know if this is more insane than Mont Saint Michel, I think that it is not though
I actually think it is crazier, even though he was almost certainly stronger in 2013. The circumstances surrounding todays performance at least make it feel so. In Mont St Michel stage he was fresh, and at the absolute peak form of his season.

Now in the Vuelta its complete opposite. He is at the tail end of his second consequtive GT, having also done two races at the Olympics in between, resulting in no downtime between the two GTs which took away a chance to build up a secondary peak for the latter. Plus his form curve in the last week or so did not exatly show clear improvement. Rather it was on a plateau or on slight decline.

Today was basically a bolt out of the blue, while Mont St Michel performance was predictable to an extent given what he had already shown in that Tour.
I would have to agree. Froome just earned himself a ban from the Clinic for trolling, baiting members and absurd performances all whilst pretending he is tired and his teammates should be DQ'd.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Re:

MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
 
Re:

MacBAir said:
Blah de blah de blah
WTF are you smoking? Almost everyone you've named has been tagged for doping or at least strongly believed to have doped, and has had clinic time dedicated to them. This being a Froome thread, it makes sense the focus would be on him. Are you a nit?

Froome going full genius now. Wins le Tour. Competes in the Olympic RR and TT and medals in the latter, and then destroying everyone in the final TT of the Vuelta. Oh, and can climb pretty much just as well as he can TT. I simply laugh at anyone who thinks that these are natural performances.
 
Re:

MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
In other words, how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. Cue Major Kong.
 
Re: Re:

jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
Come on, the first two are convicted dopers and the third was beating everyone in the ITT's by 5-10 mins and hanging with the best climbers of the day, when they had more EPO in there blood stream than red blood cells. Pantani if I remember rightly was believed to have doped at an early stage in his career and who knows with Contador.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Come on, the first two are convicted dopers and the third was beating everyone in the ITT's by 5-10 mins and hanging with the best climbers of the day, when they had more EPO in there blood stream than red blood cells. Pantani if I remember rightly was believed to have doped at an early stage in his career and who knows with Contador.
And Froome, who hacked Kenyan cycling fed's email account to get what he wanted, was squeaky clean, at Barloworld? Don't make me laugh. He was doped, just like Contador, Pantani and Indurain, but something happened in late 2011 that suddenly made him the world's best GC racer.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
Come on, the first two are convicted dopers and the third was beating everyone in the ITT's by 5-10 mins and hanging with the best climbers of the day, when they had more EPO in there blood stream than red blood cells. Pantani if I remember rightly was believed to have doped at an early stage in his career and who knows with Contador.
Correct and so to be far more ridiculous than them takes some doing....but hey...that's our Chris...
 
Re: Re:

jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
seems like the only thing one needs to use any amount of any doping and be tolerated by cycling community is showing talent at young years.
 
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
How many watts did he get from the motor today? 50? 100?

Great performance nevertheless and looks like a runner-up finish in the Vuelta. I don't expect the first three spots to change.
You never know. Dawg might lose more fat and become more efficient overnight.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
seems like the only thing one needs to use any amount of any doping and be tolerated by cycling community is showing talent at young years.
The translation of that to honest, simple language is: start getting drugged and have doping connections since a very young age.

Now one knows if anyone was talented.

It's obviously clear to me that Froome never dreamed of having access to the high end stuff that all the greats enjoyed. The moment he went to sky, he did.

It's just that:
A) He is just a naturally superior athlete and smokes everybody on a level playing field.
B) He is a much better responder to the same stuff. Genetic luck.

Choose your poison. In any case, I reiterate my point:
- If you don't accept the show, don't watch. But stop playing the childish, obsessive, sick game of butt hurt witch hunting.

There's not even slightly evidence that Froome has any sort of unfair advantage. I mean, since he seems so eloquent and a gentleman, maybe that's a sign that he is smarter.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
dacooley said:
jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
seems like the only thing one needs to use any amount of any doping and be tolerated by cycling community is showing talent at young years.
The translation of that to honest, simple language is: start getting drugged and have doping connections since a very young age.

Now one knows if anyone was talented.

It's obviously clear to me that Froome never dreamed of having access to the high end stuff that all the greats enjoyed. The moment he went to sky, he did.

It's just that:
A) He is just a naturally superior athlete and smokes everybody on a level playing field.
B) He is a much better responder to the same stuff. Genetic luck.

Choose your poison. In any case, I reiterate my point:
- If you don't accept the show, don't watch. But stop playing the childish, obsessive, sick game of butt hurt witch hunting.

There's not even slightly evidence that Froome has any sort of unfair advantage. I mean, since he seems so eloquent and a gentleman, maybe that's a sign that he is smarter.
Don't accept the show, dont watch! Says who? And why would should fans not expect rules to be followed and athletes to perform clean?

Eloquence and a gentleman has no bearing on performance, which is what is being discussed.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
MacBAir said:
dacooley said:
jilbiker said:
MacBAir said:
There's not even a peanut of evidence that Froome is doing anything even remotely dirtier than Alberto and Quintana, to Andy and Frank, to Heras, Menchov, Ulrich, Lance, Kloden, Vino, Pantani, Indurain, Laurent, Zulle, Riis, Lemond, Fignon, Hinault, Zoetmelk, Merckx, Roger, Van Impe, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, Binda, etc.

There's also not even a smaller peanut of crucial evidence that Froome isn't a better modern, GC cyclist that any of those could ever be.

As such, if you have any of those riders in good consideration and enjoyed any of those races and performances, not doing the same for Froome is being a hypocrite, right? Why is that? Is it because he beat your tiny favorites, or because he and sky reminds you of Lance also did nothing more than play the game of your favorites and demolish them, or what?

It seems so strange to me, a guy that most likely is more informed than the vast majority of you, without the need to live here 24/7...
Lance feels the same way. He feels he did nothing that everyone else wasn't doing. Which is why he calls it all a Witchhunt. He feels he was the best of a juiced bunch of riders. I think when someone suddenly becomes an overnight star climber and time-trialist its a turn off to people. Pantani, Contador, Indurian etc all showed great talent from a young age and fulfilled their promise...thats a difference
seems like the only thing one needs to use any amount of any doping and be tolerated by cycling community is showing talent at young years.
The translation of that to honest, simple language is: start getting drugged and have doping connections since a very young age.

Now one knows if anyone was talented.

It's obviously clear to me that Froome never dreamed of having access to the high end stuff that all the greats enjoyed. The moment he went to sky, he did.

It's just that:
A) He is just a naturally superior athlete and smokes everybody on a level playing field.
B) He is a much better responder to the same stuff. Genetic luck.

Choose your poison. In any case, I reiterate my point:
- If you don't accept the show, don't watch. But stop playing the childish, obsessive, sick game of butt hurt witch hunting.

There's not even slightly evidence that Froome has any sort of unfair advantage. I mean, since he seems so eloquent and a gentleman, maybe that's a sign that he is smarter.
Don't accept the show, dont watch! Says who? And why would should fans not expect rules to be followed and athletes to perform clean?

Eloquence and a gentleman has no bearing on performance, which is what is being discussed.
It has been happening this way since always. If it nutters you so much, it's insane that you even started watching pro cycling.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
[quote="


As has been said on here dozens of times (which you would know if you knew anything about the clinic and would also know if you knew very much about the sport

What upsets the clinic and most fans of the sport who know more than the SKY BS PR machine is the fact that we all KNOW they are on the gear
there is plenty of evidence of that
Faster times than doped riders
Beating doped riders
Riders being popped for doping
Riders disappearing off to remote corners of the world en masse to avoid WADA etc

The big issue is the nonsense that sky spout to try to make the world believe they are clean
The lies, the inconsistent history, the hiring practices (which one day are zero tolerance and the next hire anyone who can help us go faster)
Also have you ever met him? or anyone who knows him that well. Just because he has an accent to make him sound intelligent do not believe for one second he is either that intelligent or that much of a gentleman just because SKY tell you he is
Generally most FANS of the sport don't like being taken for fools

I am guessing you are quite happy with that label though.
 
Team Sky rising star Chris Froome delivered a storming time trial performance in stage 10 to take the lead in the Vuelta. Dirk Friel of TrainingPeaks analyses Chris’ ride.

August 29, Stage 10: Salamanca ITT 47km

Stage Results
1 Tony Martin (Ger) HTC-Highroad.0:55:54
2 Christopher Froome (GBr) Team Sky.0:00:59
3 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Team Sky.0:01:22
4 Fabian Cancellara (Swi) Leopard Trek.0:01:27
5 Taylor Phinney (USA) BMC Racing Team.0:01:33


SRM Data
Average Watts: 406w (Normalised power: 412w)
TSS: 99
Avg Speed: 31mph
Max Speed: 45mph
Avg Cadence: 94
Avg Heart Rate: 147bpm

Froome averaged 5.8w/kg at 406W for nearly an hour! He paced the event to perfection as the first half had a total altitude gain of 219m and he averaged 414w, versus the second half where the course had a total elevation gain of only 86m and he averaged 398w. There were certainly riders who started the time trial too hard and suffered in the final 20km where Froome ended up gaining ground
http://www.skysports.com/cycling/news/20192/7452102/froome-trainingpeaks-analysis


In the 2011 Vuelta Froome performed 406w avg, 5.8w/kg for 57 minutes in the ITT. Today I think he was toping out at 6.5w/kg maybe more for 47 minutes.

That's insane power.
 
Aug 15, 2016
225
0
0
imagine if Froome was spanish, french or italian , or at least raised in a country in Europe with good cycling backbone

his breakthrough would have been at 22-23 years old

imagine 10 years of Froome - Contador battles at high level

what cycling has missed ...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY