Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 912 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I was surprised that Froome and Quintana didn't drop off in weeks 2 and 3 after a hard Tour... I really thought Contador and Chaves would fight it out. Clearly, the top two finishers displayed remarkable recovery skills.

Has nothing to do with the backlash with Froome. You're always going to get your share if you're on top.

With that said, I must admit that watching the Sky train is like watching the US Postal train which is like watching the Banesto train.
 
ahsoe said:
Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know:))
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards
Firstly, welcome to the forum :)

So, when questioned, do you expect Sky/Froome to say 'yes we're doping'? If they're being questioned about it constantly unlike their rivals, they will deny it constantly unlike their rivals.

Yes, at the start, Sky had a load of anti-doping propaganda. But looking at their results in 2010, it's genuinely possible that they rode a season clean, before turning to doping in 2011 just like all their rivals.

Gerrans, Lovkvist, Nordhaug, Kwiatkowski, Landa, Kennaugh, Swift, Boasson Hagen, Fenn to mention a few of the Sky failures. Not such a low rate of failure after all.

As for Froome and Quintana not fading, well it's all relative. Fwiw, Chaves, a rider known for having very poor recovery and generally being poor in the final week of GTs, was probably better than both Froome and Quintana in the final week of this year's Vuelta.
 
djpbaltimore said:
42x16ss said:
Reread the post - he says he likes riders who get on with the job, don't insult anyone's intelligence and don't get all holier-than-thou.
Contador and his tainted jerseys displayed in his foundation as a symbol of his hard work says hello.....

djpbaltimore said:
It’s striking how emphatically he responds when asked if he still believes he has won nine Grand Tours rather than the adjusted figure of seven. “Si, si,” he exclaims. “Without doubt I’ve won nine. Look at the jersey of the Tour 2010 and the Giro 2011,” Contador says, pointing to the framed mementoes on the wall in his Foundation office. “I won both those races in a clean and honest way. Only with work and sacrifice. I put those up as an example.”
alberto contador
“With the system of anti-doping control we now have and the quantity of those tests for the top riders it is impossible to cheat. If you do it’s like a suicide. I’ve no doubt this is why it’s clean at the very highest level.”
Pretty solid evidence that Contador can be as strident and self-righteous about doping as any of the other dopers in the peloton.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/16/alberto-contador-tour-de-france-olympics-end-interview?CMP=share_btn_tw
I'll just throw Hitch's reply to that post in here as well

The Hitch said:
No. No it isn't.

You see the bit where it says "when asked". That's what determines whether he is being a self righteous ***, or if he's just a doper, who doesn't want to be caught.

No one expects any doper yet alone someone as committed to omerta as contador to when asked about doping say "you got me chief. Guilty".

Of course they are going to deny doping if the are asked about it. That would be the end of their career.

The self righteous part is taking the initiative oneself to go out there and spam the media with a fake anti doping narrative. Contador is not doing that. He's not releasing clearly fabricated stories about super training methods that combat doping, or about Riis ripping out pages from tour guides. He doesn't scapegoat either. Stories about how he knew ricco or Armstrong or vino or diluca were cheating him and he hopes they get life bans.

That's what the self righteous BS is. That's what the hypocrisy is.
 
By the way, when Contador was on top of the sport he was subject to just as much scrutiny as Froome is now. Everyone knew he was doping and he received a ton of backlash.

It got to the point where Contador was vilified for not stopping for Andy Schleck when he cracked/lost a chain. Ironically, Schleck is now recognized as the winner of that Tour.

Criticism is often unpleasant but it comes with the territory.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
Came across this young vlogger Jesper who won a Zwift race (youtube: cyclinghub), only to be DQ'd immediately... because... he's put out TOO MUCH WATTS for his (low) category... maybe an idea for UCI to consider (hors categorie, or rather horse... or alien)
 
Re:

doperhopper said:
Came across this young vlogger Jesper who won a Zwift race (youtube: cyclinghub), only to be DQ'd immediately... because... he's put out TOO MUCH WATTS for his (low) category... maybe an idea for UCI to consider (hors categorie, or rather horse... or alien)
Looks like Jesper has a good understanding of how the pro cycling world really works.

FYI, check out his channel.
 
Re:

DanielSong39 said:
By the way, when Contador was on top of the sport he was subject to just as much scrutiny as Froome is now. Everyone knew he was doping and he received a ton of backlash.

It got to the point where Contador was vilified for not stopping for Andy Schleck when he cracked/lost a chain. Ironically, Schleck is now recognized as the winner of that Tour.

Criticism is often unpleasant but it comes with the territory.
Not true at all. But at that point, Lance hadn't been officially exposed, which certainly turned a lot of believers into non-believers, and Contador had a much more natural progression to his career than Froome, so it's understandable that Froome gets twice the scrutiny that Contador did back in the day
 
ahsoe said:
bigcog said:
ahsoe said:
Nice diatribe ... btw one of your heroes who is more likeable is a convicted doper but anyway ..
It was not meant that way. I realize, that some of my phrasings perhaps were a bit harsh. I apologise if it has offended you or anybody else. It certainly wasn't the intention.

As I wrote, I am not fond of Froome as an athlete. For the listed reasons in my previous post.
Considering the story/narrative, setup and result of Froome and Sky as well as looking at the history of cycling it just does not add up for me.

I realize Froome or Sky hasn't had any positive doping samples which incriminated them to a point where they could not and were not allowed to come up with a plausible explanation (Tiernan-Locke, Sergio Henao). But for me personally the reasons listed in my previous post, while keeping in mind US Postal and before that the nineties with vast EPO-abuse is enough to put me off. If something is too good to be true, it probably isn't.

I would probably be more forthcoming towards Sky, if it wasn't for the fact that they want us to believe, that their total domination of at least the Tour in recent years was done clean, while keeping in mind that they in the process beats riders such as Contador and Valverde who, as we know, have both served suspensions (They might of course be clean now, but I doubt it).
Riders like Contador and Valverde, Nibali or Quintana might dope, but at least they just get on with the cycling. Of course asked directly they will deny any accusations, but they do not come up with excuses like marginal gains, training better etc. (Edit: I realize the steak-excuse does not help my argumentation :razz: )

Moreover, for me, their total domination and lack of any competition in the Tour kills the excitement of the race. As I wrote, I don't mind doping as long as it a more or less level playing field, and currently with Froome and Sky it is far from that for the person looking in from the outside. And that ruins the experience for me.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Best regards
No offense taken ;) Everyone has the right to their own opinion.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
DanielSong39 said:
By the way, when Contador was on top of the sport he was subject to just as much scrutiny as Froome is now. Everyone knew he was doping and he received a ton of backlash.

It got to the point where Contador was vilified for not stopping for Andy Schleck when he cracked/lost a chain. Ironically, Schleck is now recognized as the winner of that Tour.

Criticism is often unpleasant but it comes with the territory.
Not true at all. But at that point, Lance hadn't been officially exposed, which certainly turned a lot of believers into non-believers, and Contador had a much more natural progression to his career than Froome, so it's understandable that Froome gets twice the scrutiny that Contador did back in the day
Actually, yes true.

Twice the scrutiny?

Definitely do not agree with that.

Unless you are saying that Froome gets more negativity from mediums like twitter, than Contador did in 2009, for the simple reason that those mediums were much smaller then.
 
Re: Re:

DanielSong39 said:
PremierAndrew said:
Has anyone here ever tried osymmetric chain rings? I really don't think it's possible to use a motor these days without being caught, unless you have a 100% efficient motor that gives off no heat. But who the hell accelerates without getting out of the saddle? It's very odd.

Would osymmetric chain rings possibly explain why Froome just ups his cadence sitting down instead of standing up for a quick burst and sitting back down again?
Did he bring osymmetric rings to the Vuelta? Because his bursts looked much more "normal" compared to what we've seen in the past.
There was a lot of coverage in the ITT, (as expected being down to the last 2 riders on the road) clearly showing the O-rings on that bike.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
PremierAndrew said:
DanielSong39 said:
By the way, when Contador was on top of the sport he was subject to just as much scrutiny as Froome is now. Everyone knew he was doping and he received a ton of backlash.

It got to the point where Contador was vilified for not stopping for Andy Schleck when he cracked/lost a chain. Ironically, Schleck is now recognized as the winner of that Tour.

Criticism is often unpleasant but it comes with the territory.
Not true at all. But at that point, Lance hadn't been officially exposed, which certainly turned a lot of believers into non-believers, and Contador had a much more natural progression to his career than Froome, so it's understandable that Froome gets twice the scrutiny that Contador did back in the day
Actually, yes true.

Twice the scrutiny?

Definitely do not agree with that.

Unless you are saying that Froome gets more negativity from mediums like twitter, than Contador did in 2009, for the simple reason that those mediums were much smaller then.
Well social media plays a huge role, and that does form a large part of the scrutiny I was referring to, but even ignoring that, Froome does receive more scrutiny. Maybe not from the press so much but certainly from the general public

Not that it matters either way
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
 
PremierAndrew said:
ahsoe said:
Hi there

First post from a danish cycling fan. Great and interesting forum I must say.

I know much of what I am writing here has been covered in length already.

I don't mind doping as such, as long as it is a more or less level playing field. (The Tour of 07 with Rasmussen and Contador battling up each mountain was for me the most exciting race I can remember in recent years. Even though they most likely both were doped. Rasmussen was for sure anyway. The Schleck-Contador duels were also very good.)
In the best of all worlds, there weren't any doping, but this is unfortunately not realistic.

I dislike Froome as an athlete and will never accept or believe him and Team Sky in general in cycling. And all this newfound goodguy, applauding your opponents will not win me over, sorry.
I mean it is a good thing. Sportsmanship is always good to see. But it will not convince me.

-His major transformation pre/post Vuelta 2011. I haven't seen anything like that before. For me annoyingly suspicious.
-Looking like a skeleton or kz-prisoner Froome is able to outclimb the best climbers with relative ease while at the same time crushing the specialists in timetrials
-In this years Vuelta he can stay on pretty much the same level throughout the three weeks after having done the Tour and Olympics. And battle for the win. I find that very unlikely.
-The Mount Ventoux 2013 is to date the single most jaw-dropping ridiculous performance I have seen in cycling. Breaking in the corners... Please!
-Illness, Bilhazaria as an explanation to the sudden transformation
-I do not recall who said it or if it was even Sky. But it has been suggested, that the lack of multiple attacks/accelerations on mountain stages is a sign that cycling is cleaner yet Froome makes 5-6-7 savage accelerations when attacking up a mountain.
-He comes accross as tactically not very good. I would like to see him and Sky without the radios and Power-meters.
-'Sky and Froome have been tested more than most athletes' as a sign that they are clean. Lance was also tested much and Bjarne Riis never tested positive
-His style on a bicycle, sitting accelerations with legs going like drumsticks and elbows everywhere (not really relevant for the discussion, I know:))
-They are riding just as fast as previously doped riders
-Wiggins' fantastic 2012 season followed by more or less nothing compared to that year.
-Team Sky's brutal dominance coinciding with the emergence of weight-loss drugs like AICAR and GW-1516 (and probably others). In that vein (haha) emaciated Horner wining the 2013 Vuelta at 41 of age.
-Their stated mission, to show, that you can compete with a clean team and their zero-tolerance politic compared to the staff they have had employed
-Their statement: 'We train better and pay more attention to detail than our competitors. And therefore receive marginal gains.' That is just arrogant and condescending towards the competitors in my opinion. As well as unlikely.
-Their continued insistance that 'we are oh so clean'
-First it was Wiggins, then Froome. Third Ritchie Porte, fourth Geraint Thomas. Next up Peter Kennaugh and Ian Boswell. Sky has an amazing ability to optimize performance of riders and turn classic riders into GC-competitors. With a very small rate of failure. They seem to follow a two-year scedule starting with a statement: 'I want to explore my GC-potential'.
-Their lieutenants and this year a large part of their Tour squad are stronger or just as strong as the other teams captains in the mountains. Completely kills any exciting racing.
-The complete lack of positive doping tests in recent years are for me very very suspicious.

I am looking forward to knowing what they are doing, that are making them so succesful. But it will probably be a while before we know.

Until then I will cheer for the likes of Contador, Quintana, Chaves, Nibali etc. who are probably also doping, but are not talking much about it, just riding their bike.
They are, at least for me, much more likable.

Best regards
Firstly, welcome to the forum :)

So, when questioned, do you expect Sky/Froome to say 'yes we're doping'? If they're being questioned about it constantly unlike their rivals, they will deny it constantly unlike their rivals.

Yes, at the start, Sky had a load of anti-doping propaganda. But looking at their results in 2010, it's genuinely possible that they rode a season clean, before turning to doping in 2011 just like all their rivals.

Gerrans, Lovkvist, Nordhaug, Kwiatkowski, Landa, Kennaugh, Swift, Boasson Hagen, Fenn to mention a few of the Sky failures. Not such a low rate of failure after all.

As for Froome and Quintana not fading, well it's all relative. Fwiw, Chaves, a rider known for having very poor recovery and generally being poor in the final week of GTs, was probably better than both Froome and Quintana in the final week of this year's Vuelta.
I wouldn't say he was stronger than the two in the final week. He simply was no threat in the gc to either of them. He was given a very, very long rope because of that fact.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
How many people in ADAMS in 2014 and how many TUE's?
How about 2015 then to compare?
 
Angliru said:
I wouldn't say he was stronger than the two in the final week. He simply was no threat in the gc to either of them. He was giving a very, very long rope because of that fact.
Sure he was given leeway, but he was also very strong, and you can't deny that he was at least a similar level to the top 2 in the final week, which would never usually be the case, let alone in the final week of a GT in Chaves' case
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
How many people in ADAMS in 2014 and how many TUE's?
How about 2015 then to compare?
2014 - >51,000 active users with more than 274,000 athlete profiles registered.
2014 - 897 Approved TUE's (which was an increase of 41% over 2013)
Source: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada-2014-annual-report-en-rev.pdf

2015 - xxxx active users with more than xxx,xxx athlete profiles registered. (not reported in the annual report that I could find....)
2015 - 1330 approved TUE's (an increase of over 30% more than 2014)
Source: https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wad-020_annual_report_2015_vf_high_3.pdf

More interesting to me is how these numbers are derived and stack up - according to a tweet by Richard Ings (@ringsau) on 14 Sept 2016, "In 14/15 The Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee approved 234 TUE's for medical use of banned substances. Normal stuff."
Source: https://twitter.com/ringsau/status/775894625211015168

I'm not sure if he's reporting on FY 14/15, but if so, then that is a ridiculously high percentage of the total number of 1166 TUE's being apportioned to one country. Not just ridiculously high, but unprobable.

Which means either WADA is under-reporting the total number of TUE's per year (this would be my guess), or the information provided by Richard Ings is incorrect from the ASDMAC....

Or I'm missing something (also likely)
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
That's partly because their report didn't provide any figures of the increase in those athletes in the Registered Testing Pool (RTP) even though they did in the previous report. Just an anecdotal, throwaway line about it happening. Any reporting inconsistency just raises more questions in my mind.
 
Aug 9, 2016
45
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
So, essentially, in a thread about Froome and hence cycling specific, silvergrenade posted details of the UCI's TUEs, and Benotti countered with information about TUEs across the whole of sport?
 
Re: Re:

Winnats said:
fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
So, essentially, in a thread about Froome and hence cycling specific, silvergrenade posted details of the UCI's TUEs, and Benotti countered with information about TUEs across the whole of sport?
Reasonable point. I'm not Benotti obviously, and I don't intend to get in the middle of this, but I too made the same mistake.

From what I can see, and there's no way to tell exactly without counting them individually (it's presented as a .pdf on their website and too difficult to import into Excel), and with a random sampling approach, I gathered that there's something like <>1050 Cyclists in the RTP for WADA in 2016 (can't find details for 2015 but perhaps similarish?)

From the UCI Website, there has been a total of 13 TUE's in 2015 issued, down from 24 the previous year.

Something I'm confused about, is who can approve the TUE's?

ASADA can (or any NADO), so why do the UCI approve them too? Is it possible that the application goes to the NADO, and it's only if a rider gets popped that it needs to be submitted for approval to UCI?

Sorry - it's probably very straightforwardly explained somewhere and I'm just not getting it...
 
Aug 9, 2016
45
0
0
Re: Re:

heart_attack_man said:
Winnats said:
fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
So, essentially, in a thread about Froome and hence cycling specific, silvergrenade posted details of the UCI's TUEs, and Benotti countered with information about TUEs across the whole of sport?
Reasonable point. I'm not Benotti obviously, and I don't intend to get in the middle of this, but I too made the same mistake.

From what I can see, and there's no way to tell exactly without counting them individually (it's presented as a .pdf on their website and too difficult to import into Excel), and with a random sampling approach, I gathered that there's something like <>1050 Cyclists in the RTP for WADA in 2016 (can't find details for 2015 but perhaps similarish?)

From the UCI Website, there has been a total of 13 TUE's in 2015 issued, down from 24 the previous year.

Something I'm confused about, is who can approve the TUE's?

ASADA can (or any NADO), so why do the UCI approve them too? Is it possible that the application goes to the NADO, and it's only if a rider gets popped that it needs to be submitted for approval to UCI?

Sorry - it's probably very straightforwardly explained somewhere and I'm just not getting it...
It seems to be explained in this link (http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/CleanSport/16/80/69/2015.01.01.TUERegversion30.06.2016_Neutral.pdf which is linked from the page that silvergrenade posted;

To paraphrase;

Any international rider needs to obtain a TUE from the UCI;
a national rider who has a TUE from his/her NADO must have it recognised by the UCI if competing in an international event.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
armchairclimber said:
Kudos to blackcat though, spotting Froome before the Muscular Christianity took effect.
viewtopic.php?t=15116
blackcats wildean drollery

second to a 'high calibre chinese chrono rider' :)

to beating Martin T whilst literally 'sick as a horse'

first class :)
Blackcat saw his debut at the Tour for Robertson's Barloworld and then read what Brailsford said when he first got Froome alliterationz in to test him. He debuted at the Tour at 22. So what does it matter when the youngsters get on the big time programs in the juniors like Andy Schleck and Kreuziger... if they are on medium programs when they are 22, they wont ride as well as a 20yo Shleck in Giro riding onto the podium innit.

blackcat was serious, and never got a wide berth from the Empire Crew.

Read blackcat @forearmsvanpetegem on twitter! :cool:
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
How many people in ADAMS in 2014 and how many TUE's?
How about 2015 then to compare?
Ask WADA.
 
Re: Re:

Winnats said:
fmk_RoI said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
TUEs are on the increase.
Any way you can substantiate your claim?
Benotti is referring to the recent WADA report which put the number of TUEs listed in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 as being 30% up on 2014. But willfully chooses to ignore the explanation WADA then gave for that increase: more people were in ADAMS in calendar year 2015 than 2014. It's the usual tactic of playing to the peanut gallery that doesn't bother to read stories, just their headlines.
So, essentially, in a thread about Froome and hence cycling specific, silvergrenade posted details of the UCI's TUEs, and Benotti countered with information about TUEs across the whole of sport?
Yes. But throwing the wrong stats out as an answer is a tried and trusted technique. It's not like anybody actually checks these things.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS