Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hegelian]

Re:

People. Let me apologize in advance from what I'm about to say.

Anyone that even suggests that Froome and Sky are clean should be immediately banned from any public place, the clinic included. We know, for a fact, that's just not possible. If a person suggests that, after everything that has happened and is known, that person is either unbalanced (and needs medical help) or just trolling. There's no other option. Being pathetically dumb and ignorant and still vomit things as fact also classifies as trolling.

So, it comes to reason that discussing this over and over again is just insanity.

However, what should be of concern to us is if, and why, Froome and Sky have any sort of unfair advantage against their rivals. Yes, because anyone that even suggest that any top rider racing with Tinkoff, Astana, Movistar, Ettix and others is clean, should be banned as well.

For me, this is the meat of the subject. I still don't know about any ounce of evidence that even suggests that Froome and Sky isn't just better responders/smarter with their approach, thus being 100% fair game (as far as world tour results go.). I don't even understand the "hatred". Froome can be a spectacular rider, and for anyone that says that sky are hypocrites and deserve the hatred:

• Ask Contador about the doping ban, again, racing for teams related with doping during his whole career, having that win Vs rasmussen, show him the interviews he did after he was caught but blamed some meat;
  
• Do the same for Movistar and Valverde, and all of Unzué's DS career;
  
• Nibali, Astana, Vino, Ferrari?
  
• Menchov and rabobank/leinders/boogerd all dutchies;
  
• Ettix lol?
  
• etc.

So, it seems to be that no one as anything even remotely rational against sky that can't be applied to any WT team and team leader. Thus, proving that's all fair game and that we should be praising Froome as much as we have praised any single big champion. The reason why we/you aren't doing this is just because they are the best.

I'm open to learn something, today. If anyone feels like it, teach me were I'm wrong.

I think you're mainly right.

Particularly this year, he rode like a champion in the tdf. So why the lack of praise?

Well of course it's subjective. But for me at least:

a. The team dominance which is reminiscent of UPS. Who praised that at the time? I stopped watching.

b. The aesthetics. He looks terrible on a bike.

c. The transformation. It is extreme. I didn't praise Ricco, Rasmussen or Armstrong - they were all too unbelievable to even countenance as interesting fantasy fiction. You look at it unfolding and you just think 'this is really ridiculous.' That's the thought, instead of praise.

Rational? Nope. But it makes a certain kind of sense.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

Jan Knows: ' Ullrich is not of a mind to cast aspersions on the credibility of professional cycling in 2016.

“I don’t want to think this,” Ullrich said smilingly. “I never think when I see Froome or something, whether he’s doping or not doping."'

Ever the diplomat by the big fella but take that as a big as a hint as you need from someone who knows....

I think you're reading too much into that.

Maybe it was lost in translation but what does 'Froome or something' mean? Why Froome and then 'something' rather than 'someone'? And why then 'he's' and not 'they're'? It's clear what he is talking about....

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

Maybe it was lost in translation but what does 'Froome or something' mean? Why Froome and then 'something' rather than 'someone'? And why then 'he's' and not 'they're'? It's clear what he is talking about....

I don't know whether Ullrich originally answered in German or whether he answered in English and the author of the article left it unaltered.

Either way, I'm almost 100% sure that he is making a general statement about his approach to watching cycling and he is not insinuating anything. He doesn't know and he can't be bothered to think about it because it would ruin the fun for him. Keep in mind that he is quite a simple individual. I know how arrogant that sounds, but I grew up alongside his cycling career (Champs-Elysees 1997 when I was just about 5 years old is probably my first cycling memory), have listened to and read many of his interviews and IMO he is essentially a child in a man's body.
He wants to enjoy his life in peace and harmony, and he would never bother to make accusations, open or veiled, towards the current peloton. I don't think it's in his nature.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Jan Knows: ' Ullrich is not of a mind to cast aspersions on the credibility of professional cycling in 2016.

“I don’t want to think this,” Ullrich said smilingly. “I never think when I see Froome or something, whether he’s doping or not doping."'

Ever the diplomat by the big fella but take that as a big as a hint as you need from someone who knows....

I think you're reading too much into that.

Maybe it was lost in translation but what does 'Froome or something' mean? Why Froome and then 'something' rather than 'someone'? And why then 'he's' and not 'they're'? It's clear what he is talking about....

Indeed.
As Ulrich himself once said, "if you can't do 1+1 then I can't help you".
And he's right. Journos should stop asking silly questions to the wrong people.

 

[bikinggirl]

Froome should be banned participating TDF 2017 and in the future until everything have been cleared. This in order to avoid any more TDF titles to be voided in the future as three titles already is three too many.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Froome should be banned participating TDF 2017 and in the future until everything have been cleared. This in order to avoid any more TDF titles to be voided in the future as three titles already is three too many.

Until allegations are cleared?

There are no formal charges pending against Chris Froome at the moment.

If we were to make a pro cyclist sit from competition every time someone alleges shenanigans (deserved or not) there would be no-one left to participate in the races...

 

[pastronef]

I´ve read a few Bikinggirls posts on the Clinic and it´s clear she has a big problem with Sky and Froome. I feel for her, I suggest to stop following the sport for a few year, then come back and try to enjoy it when Froome has retired. it´s bad for her, anger is not good.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

It'll be interesting to see what reaction that "Froomey" and Sky get on the roads of France this year (assuming no new revelations come out).... There was a lot of hostility when there was no sign of smoke, now when we see some flames it could be nasty!!

"...when there was no sign of smoke"

There's been smoke since the second or third season and fire since 2011. Sky's program has been obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Maybe it was lost in translation but what does 'Froome or something' mean? Why Froome and then 'something' rather than 'someone'? And why then 'he's' and not 'they're'? It's clear what he is talking about....

I don't know whether Ullrich originally answered in German or whether he answered in English and the author of the article left it unaltered.

Either way, I'm almost 100% sure that he is making a general statement about his approach to watching cycling and he is not insinuating anything. He doesn't know and he can't be bothered to think about it because it would ruin the fun for him. Keep in mind that he is quite a simple individual. I know how arrogant that sounds, but I grew up alongside his cycling career (Champs-Elysees 1997 when I was just about 5 years old is probably my first cycling memory), have listened to and read many of his interviews and IMO he is essentially a child in a man's body.
He wants to enjoy his life in peace and harmony, and he would never bother to make accusations, open or veiled, towards the current peloton. I don't think it's in his nature.

Uh...

"Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help."

- Jan Ullrich

No, not the current peloton, but a comment made well after he retired about the then current peloton. I don't know what he meant in the quote above, but Ullrich isn't beyond making veiled comments about the obvious.

 

[veganrob]

I´ve read a few Bikinggirls posts on the Clinic and it´s clear she has a big problem with Sky and Froome. I feel for her, I suggest to stop following the sport for a few year, then come back and try to enjoy it when Froome has retired. it´s bad for her, anger is not good.

I think bikinggirl is just very passionate about cycling and would like to see a clean peloton. Froome and Sky just make a mockery of it all. Maybe she just needs to chill a bit and your lame ass posts don't help her.

 

[pastronef]

I´ve read a few Bikinggirls posts on the Clinic and it´s clear she has a big problem with Sky and Froome. I feel for her, I suggest to stop following the sport for a few year, then come back and try to enjoy it when Froome has retired. it´s bad for her, anger is not good.

I think bikinggirl is just very passionate about cycling and would like to see a clean peloton. Froome and Sky just make a mockery of it all. Maybe she just needs to chill a bit and your lame *** posts don't help her.

I DO NOT post in ANY thread about ANY riders calling them jerks viewtopic.php?f=20&t=21464&p=2043713#p2043713 or asking for any rider to be banned from racing. or calling G.Thomas the biggest doper ever viewtopic.php?p=1768431#p1768431
she´s obsessed, and it´s not good.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

No, not the current peloton

Exactly.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

No, not the current peloton

Exactly.

I think it's possible you have mistaken my meaning.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

From a comment on a Guardian article discussing where Murray stands in the pantheon of sportsmen and tennis number 1s, the delusion is strong here. However, if Froome won a PR the internet would break.


"Even 3-5 classics would cap it off for Froome. If he could win Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and Lombardy or maybe even Amstel Gold Race several times he may not necessarily need another grand tour.

Of course Tour of Flanders or Paris-Roubaix would make it all more impressive, but the other three are more suited to him. The conversion to cobble classics specialist would take longer."

He'd need a helicopter. It's another kind of bike racing he can't do well. Ardennes classics are a remote possibility. In theory, he's got the engine to do just fine in one-day races. Mysteriously, that engine never shows up for one-day races.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

Froome should be banned participating TDF 2017 and in the future until everything have been cleared. This in order to avoid any more TDF titles to be voided in the future as three titles already is three too many.

There is too much money to be made selling World Championships to British Taxpayers, along with new events produced by ASO. In this sense, the UCI never testing Sky positive turned out MUCH better than Armstrong's.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

No, not the current peloton

Exactly.

I think it's possible you have mistaken my meaning.

And I think it's possible you have mistaken mine :twisted:

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

People. Let me apologize in advance from what I'm about to say.

Anyone that even suggests that Froome and Sky are clean should be immediately banned from any public place, the clinic included. We know, for a fact, that's just not possible. If a person suggests that, after everything that has happened and is known, that person is either unbalanced (and needs medical help) or just trolling. There's no other option. Being pathetically dumb and ignorant and still vomit things as fact also classifies as trolling.

So, it comes to reason that discussing this over and over again is just insanity.

However, what should be of concern to us is if, and why, Froome and Sky have any sort of unfair advantage against their rivals. Yes, because anyone that even suggest that any top rider racing with Tinkoff, Astana, Movistar, Ettix and others is clean, should be banned as well.

For me, this is the meat of the subject. I still don't know about any ounce of evidence that even suggests that Froome and Sky isn't just better responders/smarter with their approach, thus being 100% fair game (as far as world tour results go.). I don't even understand the "hatred". Froome can be a spectacular rider, and for anyone that says that sky are hypocrites and deserve the hatred:

• Ask Contador about the doping ban, again, racing for teams related with doping during his whole career, having that win Vs rasmussen, show him the interviews he did after he was caught but blamed some meat;
  
• Do the same for Movistar and Valverde, and all of Unzué's DS career;
  
• Nibali, Astana, Vino, Ferrari?
  
• Menchov and rabobank/leinders/boogerd all dutchies;
  
• Ettix lol?
  
• etc.

So, it seems to be that no one as anything even remotely rational against sky that can't be applied to any WT team and team leader. Thus, proving that's all fair game and that we should be praising Froome as much as we have praised any single big champion. The reason why we/you aren't doing this is just because they are the best.

I'm open to learn something, today. If anyone feels like it, teach me were I'm wrong.

I think you're mainly right.

Particularly this year, he rode like a champion in the tdf. So why the lack of praise?

Well of course it's subjective. But for me at least:

a. The team dominance which is reminiscent of UPS. Who praised that at the time? I stopped watching.

b. The aesthetics. He looks terrible on a bike.

c. The transformation. It is extreme. I didn't praise Ricco, Rasmussen or Armstrong - they were all too unbelievable to even countenance as interesting fantasy fiction. You look at it unfolding and you just think 'this is really ridiculous.' That's the thought, instead of praise.

Rational? Nope. But it makes a certain kind of sense.

Bingo. At least Armstrong had the courtesy to win races like Flèche-Wallone, San Sebastian, a WC, a national championship and a couple of TDF stages, as well as making the podium at Liege and Amstel more than once before he started insulting our intelligence. Rasmussen was the same with the Grimpeur's classifications, a couple of strong TDF top 10's and other good results.

Froome? Well, there was the time he made it to the foot of Alpe D'Huez in the final 30-40 odd riders, the time he beat Contador when he punctured 3 times, the time he "only" lost 3 minutes in a TDF TT, ummm.... the time he was dropped by Gerrans at the Giro, the time he was booted from the Giro for holding on to a motorbike, the time he crashed into the commissaire at the U23 WC TT...

Catch the drift?

I have to go and scrub myself now...

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Jan Knows: ' Ullrich is not of a mind to cast aspersions on the credibility of professional cycling in 2016.

“I don’t want to think this,” Ullrich said smilingly. “I never think when I see Froome or something, whether he’s doping or not doping."'

Ever the diplomat by the big fella but take that as a big as a hint as you need from someone who knows....

I think you're reading too much into that.

Maybe it was lost in translation but what does 'Froome or something' mean? Why Froome and then 'something' rather than 'someone'? And why then 'he's' and not 'they're'? It's clear what he is talking about....

you wholeheartedly support the rider who, let me quote you, "swept the floor with froome (yes, froome, this doping mutant) without a thought in the vuelta". where is the hell logics?

 

[MmeDesgrange]

Re: Re:

From a comment on a Guardian article discussing where Murray stands in the pantheon of sportsmen and tennis number 1s, the delusion is strong here. However, if Froome won a PR the internet would break.


"Even 3-5 classics would cap it off for Froome. If he could win Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and Lombardy or maybe even Amstel Gold Race several times he may not necessarily need another grand tour.

Of course Tour of Flanders or Paris-Roubaix would make it all more impressive, but the other three are more suited to him. The conversion to cobble classics specialist would take longer."

He'd need a helicopter. It's another kind of bike racing he can't do well. Ardennes classics are a remote possibility. In theory, he's got the engine to do just fine in one-day races. Mysteriously, that engine never shows up for one-day races.

Froome rode Paris-Roubaix once, for Barloworld, crashed into a team car

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

From a comment on a Guardian article discussing where Murray stands in the pantheon of sportsmen and tennis number 1s, the delusion is strong here. However, if Froome won a PR the internet would break.


"Even 3-5 classics would cap it off for Froome. If he could win Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and Lombardy or maybe even Amstel Gold Race several times he may not necessarily need another grand tour.

Of course Tour of Flanders or Paris-Roubaix would make it all more impressive, but the other three are more suited to him. The conversion to cobble classics specialist would take longer."

He'd need a helicopter. It's another kind of bike racing he can't do well. Ardennes classics are a remote possibility. In theory, he's got the engine to do just fine in one-day races. Mysteriously, that engine never shows up for one-day races.

Froome rode Paris-Roubaix once, for Barloworld, crashed into a team car

I love Froome stories, zig zagging, crashing into team cars, flower beds, pushing Henderson. He is almost at cute as a cat internet meme.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

..

I love Froome stories, zig zagging, crashing into team cars, flower beds, pushing Henderson. He is almost at cute as a cat internet meme.

Me too. Sandshoes. Classic. Hacking into the Kenyan Cycling database. I mean who does that? Fancybears avant la lettre.

I think it's fair to say Froome had that engine all along. Just didn't know how to translate it into power. Some technical and tactical issues. Grew up in Kenya you know.
And he also lost the fat of course and on top of that he cured his bilharzia. But mainly it was about improving his technique and tactical nous. Or maybe it was mainly about losing the fat, I don't know. Or maybe it was about killing bilharzia after all.
The great thing about him is he managed to solve all those problems in the space of two weeks.

Colourful personality in any case.
Not a wanker like Wiggins.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

..

I love Froome stories, zig zagging, crashing into team cars, flower beds, pushing Henderson. He is almost at cute as a cat internet meme.

Me too. Sandshoes. Classic. Hacking into the Kenyan Cycling database. I mean who does that? Fancybears avant la lettre.

I think it's fair to say Froome had that engine all along. Just didn't know how to translate it into power. Some technical and tactical issues. Grew up in Kenya you know.
And he also lost the fat of course and on top of that he cured his bilharzia. But mainly it was about improving his technique and tactical nous. Or maybe it was mainly about losing the fat, I don't know. Or maybe it was about killing bilharzia after all.
The great thing about him is he managed to solve all those problems in the space of two weeks.

Colourful personality in any case.
Not a 'custard' like Wiggins.

Froome needs a little Dekker in him. Get on blow suffer a bait and switch by internet hookers. Now that is real cycling!

I mean, killing rabbits?! Where's the rock'n'roll in that?

 

[Digger]

Re: Re:

..

I love Froome stories, zig zagging, crashing into team cars, flower beds, pushing Henderson. He is almost at cute as a cat internet meme.

Me too. Sandshoes. Classic. Hacking into the Kenyan Cycling database. I mean who does that? Fancybears avant la lettre.

I think it's fair to say Froome had that engine all along. Just didn't know how to translate it into power. Some technical and tactical issues. Grew up in Kenya you know.
And he also lost the fat of course and on top of that he cured his bilharzia. But mainly it was about improving his technique and tactical nous. Or maybe it was mainly about losing the fat, I don't know. Or maybe it was about killing bilharzia after all.
The great thing about him is he managed to solve all those problems in the space of two weeks.

Colourful personality in any case.
Not a 'custard' like Wiggins.

isn't that the amazing part to froome - in a story full of bizarre examples - it all happened in two weeks. No progression. If he was getting better tactically why not show improvements? If he was losing fat why not any signs of improvements? If his bilharzia was cured why not improve? And so on...but then my magic they all sort themselves out at once. Just as he's being let go by his team for not doing a thing in two years. Offered to Bruyneel but he says I don't want a donkey i'd prefer Cummings.

Froome would be suspicious at this point even if he was a fantastic junior and neo pro. But him being a solid domestique, at best, is even worse. He's now, on paper, one of the greatest GT riders of all time. His is, bar none, the greatest and most sudden transformation ever seen in cycling. His teammates take cortisone injections. The team doctor was a known doping doctor. Froome himself got a TUE for cortisone fast tracked. Froome has missed tests. Froome won't release blood data. Froome won't release pre 2011 power or blood data. Froome's bilhazia story is clearly bs and full of inconsistencies. Froome loves hanging out with known dopers. He is able to beat known oxygen vector doped riders easily. He has repeatedly beaten the times of known dopers - guys like ullrich and lance - humans have evolved that much in ten years?
Froome and walsh like to point to beating Contador in a stage in Vuelta Castilla y Leon as some proof he had talent - neglecting that Contador punctured twice and was literally laughing over the finish line.
Froome never disclosed to walsh his 'life long' asthma as he felt it would show weakness - whilst taking out his inhaler 25km to go ;before a big effort.'
He said the bilharzia was bad - asked why it didn't show up on the passport if it was that bad - he said it wasn't that far gone - so that's a nice little tight rope.
Asked why he hangs out with Vino - michelle said he didn't know the story about Vino and doping - Chris said he did...Michelle says 'not fully.'
But really froome can't succeed in this fraud unless the fans buy into this farce. And clearly many fans do buy into it. Absolutely clueless beyond belief.

Michelle can come on twitter intermittently saying they are being bullied bla bla bla - playing the victim. Comparing froome to mandela, the day mandela passed away, in how both deal with adversity. There are victims in this alright.....it's certainly not froome.

The British media have gone from riding the wave of sky to jumping ship and hatching onto froome as their saviour. But froome will be Kenyan again before too long. Just like he has said himself in previous interviews - unlike the new marketing, PR altered froome, who considers himself British all of a sudden.

If chris is so anti doping why doesn't he leave sky? I mean we know his boss is lying about Wiggins. We know his teammate won the tour whilst doping on kenacort. We known Freeman was lying. We know they were transporting something illicit - why doesn't froome give a f*** if he's clean?

 

[Freddythefrog]

Nearly 12 months on and I'm still waiting for one of the fanboys, in fact anyone to post up a picture of a cyclist with the 17% body fat the fax said Froome had. Even Swart said that was ridiculous and Swart supports him !

Nobody gets anywhere near the pro-peloton with that amount of fat. Hell, no one gets towards the front of a sportive with that amount of fat, you struggle on the club chain gang with that.

All this from someone who broke into the Kenyan Fed offices and forged email communications. Top man that Froome !

 

[sniper]

But by all means that 2007 Fax looked 100% legit.
And the story of how the fax suddenly surfaced in 2015 was very credible, too. Nothing dodgy about it at all.
Just saying, Swart was right to take that Fax at face value for the Esquire article. I have no idea why he decided not to run with it in his subsequent scientific report of Froomes testing.