Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 99 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
It heartens me to see the thread policing itself - but for the sake of consistency, I've still delivered an infraction, and deleted the original post as a personal attack. No redeeming value.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
thehog said:
It's actually an interesting question.

What's the general opinion on Spanish forums of Contador doping and Froome (potential) doping?
hrotha said:
I can only speak of Parlamento Ciclista, where the overwhelming majority thinks that Contador is a doper, Sky is a farce and Froome is ridiculous even by Sky's standards.
Yeah, hog - that IS an interesting question. And an interesting view from hrotha. I wonder if taxus sees the same on his Spanish forums?
 
hrotha said:
I can only speak of Parlamento Ciclista, where the overwhelming majority thinks that Contador is a doper, Sky is a farce and Froome is ridiculous even by Sky's standards.
Just a few days ago a administrator of that forum told me that he dont think that, but he has fear to writte about.

I know other people that just stopped to writte for that.

If everybody do the same...

But anyway forums are not the opinion of the people, just the opinion of the people who writte, and that people who writte, in most cases dont know anything inside cycling.

The truth is not what a forum said. But anyway in other environements, the opinion is quite different from here or other forums, but here I see people that think in different ways, and both of them has his arguments and there are very interesting people thinking differents things.

It is interensting, in any case, the work is made in forums, mainly in such important forums like this with smart forum members as you.

And I think that the pressure of the general opinion it is important as well to fight againt doping, but always to some extend. You declare guilty and later it is just to justify that guilt even when it has no sense or even telling a thing that before was no valid for other opinion and things like that.

What I dont like is censure, or : we are in the truth possesion, so shut up.

I read this morning the rules of the forum. I agree with that, I will try to comply them, and I will be happy if everybody do the same :)

I think the forum work very well, maybe I need to addapt to some things I am not used to.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
hrotha said:
I can only speak of Parlamento Ciclista, where the overwhelming majority thinks that Contador is a doper, Sky is a farce and Froome is ridiculous even by Sky's standards.
This is as succinctly as it can be put.

horsinabout said:
Froome's level of transformation by anyone's estimations must be viewed, even by the most moderate sceptics amongst us, to be suspicious.
Froome's transformation alone is nothing but miraculous, then you add to that the rise of Porte...

I believe one of the biggest issues is that if it is not 100% natural, it is probably 100% legal within the existing rules. It is also Very Expensive.
 
horsinabout said:
Taxus4a. Thank you for the post. Your translations is very good. I don't think I could have done the same in Spanish!

As for the content I remain incredulous to the supposed natural talents of Froome. His main transformation has come under Sky/BC banner. How relevant this is I don't fully understand, but have my suspicions.

It appears there may be an unpleasant trend emerging in sport today, where the relatively ordinary can be transformed into world beater. I think this could well be what we are witnessing in the case of Froome.
Froome's level of transformation by anyone's estimations must be viewed, even by the most moderate sceptics amongst us, to be suspicious.
Thanks.

Of course.

I think that I agree with you and as well I understad that in that article.

At the begining I was more skeptic, I just reply people that said nobody talked of his talent, he came of nowhere.. becouse It wasnt true, but right now I know enoght to be sure, of almost sure about him and SKy.

But I think this way becouse I was inside cycling world (never got an euro), met people and know things, other way I could think as you, with doubts, but like you, but anyway, you see the links of my article, links of the past, from 2009, from 2010,.. and everything has a sense.. so, for me to say that it is impossible has no sense.

To be suspicious, ok, no problem.. It is not an usual case, that is right.

But I put my finger in Santambroglio, always respeting his innocence, becouse has no sense: no illnes before, no late in cycling, no a lot to learn, no to go to a better team, no progressive change from 2009-to 2012 becouse cleaning cycling... just to be now leader, but the improve in the mountains of the Tours, was very strong, and that is impossible to explain just to be leader, he even was not the better domestique in the climbs in Giro 2012 for Pinotti... how to explain that?? no sense.

Froome case could be amazing and with a lot of coincidences with SKY, but has a demostrated sense.

I am not naive, this is money, I know well how cycling has worked during a lot of years, I though it was impossible to change, I put my finger on Lance when I consider there were too much evidence (for me he was almost always suspicious anyway)
 
hrotha said:
I can only speak of Parlamento Ciclista, where the overwhelming majority thinks that Contador is a doper, Sky is a farce and Froome is ridiculous even by Sky's standards.
Thanks.

It's good to know the feeling is world wide.

Cross border scepticism.
 
hrotha said:
Ah, of course, your secret PMs. How could I forget about them.

Give it a rest.
It is not so secret becouse that man has writted about that, a man who I had my problems for different oppinions in other issues, but he was trying to defend me to give my opinion these days.

But we are in this forum, a forum with rules, a serious forum. I dont have anything to hide, but I think other forums does not mind here.

Your are one of the few "haters" that put arguments, that way I respect you. So try to put your target in my arguments, not in other aspects. If I do that, I wouldnt answer you for personal motives, but I try to forget the person and focus in the argument.
 
"Team Sky leader says he is the underdog of the yellow jersey contenders"

""It'll be a special edition of the Tour de France because it's the 100th edition. It'll go down in history in lots of way. I feel ready. I'll be giving it everything to do my best. I won’t be holding back.""

oh dear
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Taxus4a said:
So try to put your target in my arguments, not in other aspects. If I do that, I wouldnt answer you for personal motives, but I try to forget the person an focus in the argument.
A sentiment worthy of quoting
 
horsinabout said:
Taxus4a.

It appears there may be an unpleasant trend emerging in sport today, where the relatively ordinary can be transformed into world beater. I think this could well be what we are witnessing in the case of Froome.
.
I think I have already answered when I writte about Santambroglio, I did tha same before he were caught, and I wanted he were caught.

But if after read my article you still think Froome was ordinary, we have very differents points of view.

It was said his engine was superb after test, he showed better than Mollema and Rui Costa in Giro delle Regione, he crashed twice there, that way he was 20 in GC,nhe did 14th in the last ITT of his first Tour (Contador at the same age 40th or something like that), he was still a junior rider in compare to others boys, he had no school for cycling, he was one of the best in Mont Faron, he was with Klodi and other ITTers in a some races,...he had an illness and he could not improve in some years...it is a story you can believe or not, but is not a story of a transformation, it is a story of change of differents circunstances.

If you put a rucksack in your back and climb a mountain, and later do it without rucksack, it is not a transformation, it is a change in the circunstances. Froome had in 2009 and 2010 one big rucksack, and two or three more small rucksack (this small ones in commom with other riders)

Yes, he did a little bit transformation as well, doing pilates and things like that, he got a better body, thinner, but that is not the main point, thta is a circusntance as well of to be in a good team as SKY, with good professionals (as any other big team, but in SKY more)
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Taxus4a said:
Yes, he did a little bit transformation as well, doing pilates and things like that, he got a better body, thinner, but that is not the main point, thta is a circusntance as well of to be in a good team as SKY, with good professionals (as any other big team, but in SKY more)
Yep, in about two months time, but, I agree, just a little transformer.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
No you see Taxus4a, what's required to get a free pass around here in a solid, predictable progression: good junior results, decent neo-pro standings, start winning early and then riders should lock into a continual form they shouldn't deviate from. No good or bad patches, just consistent results throughout their career, then they retire.

Basically be Lemond.

Coming from a different continent, having a disease, having poor technical skills does not compute, syntax error, system breakdown, must be a doper.

That's despite the acceptance that riders have been doping extensively for years and from early ages, which calls into question any riders 'progression', predictable and with a modest curve, or leaping around all over the place.

Best of all you need to be Southern European and attack all the time and then they don't really care what you drugs take to do it.
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
Santambrogio, or better, Vini Fantini 2013, deserve a short thread of their own. I think the Whole story of the two positives is not so cut and dry.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
JimmyFingers said:
No you see Taxus4a, what's required to get a free pass around here in a solid, predictable progression: good junior results, decent neo-pro standings, start winning early and then riders should lock into a continual form they shouldn't deviate from. No good or bad patches, just consistent results throughout their career, then they retire.

Basically be Lemond.

Coming from a different continent, having a disease, having poor technical skills does not compute, syntax error, system breakdown, must be a doper.

That's despite the acceptance that riders have been doping extensively for years and from early ages, which calls into question any riders 'progression', predictable and with a modest curve, or leaping around all over the place.

Best of all you need to be Southern European and attack all the time and then they don't really care what you drugs take to do it.
If you gonna win a GT and proclaim to be clean doing it, you need to show some kind of GT ability at a young age, early 20s.

That Froome came from nowhere in the Vuelta does not fit in with clean cycling. Using bilharzia as an excuse is right up there with all the other excuses dopers have given for extreme jumps in ability from grupettos to podiums.

To race consistently high for 3 weeks is only for the few. It is something one is born with, a constitution that is evident from an early age.
 
Benotti69 said:
If you gonna win a GT and proclaim to be clean doing it, you need to show some kind of talent at a young age, early 20s.

That Froome came from nowhere in the Vuelta does not fit in with clean cycling. Using bilharzia as an excuse is right up there with all the other excuses dopers have given for extreme jumps in ability from grupettos to podiums.

To race consistently high for 3 weeks is only for the few. It is something one is born with, a constitution that is evident from an early age.
Like he said, be named Greg Lemond.
 
JimmyFingers said:
No you see Taxus4a, what's required to get a free pass around here in a solid, predictable progression: good junior results, decent neo-pro standings, start winning early and then riders should lock into a continual form they shouldn't deviate from. No good or bad patches, just consistent results throughout their career, then they retire.

Basically be Lemond.

Coming from a different continent, having a disease, having poor technical skills does not compute, syntax error, system breakdown, must be a doper.

That's despite the acceptance that riders have been doping extensively for years and from early ages, which calls into question any riders 'progression', predictable and with a modest curve, or leaping around all over the place.

Best of all you need to be Southern European and attack all the time and then they don't really care what you drugs take to do it.
And if you come from england or great britain you are not doping and should not be suspected because it is not in your nature to dope.
 
JimmyFingers said:
No you see Taxus4a, what's required to get a free pass around here in a solid, predictable progression: good junior results, decent neo-pro standings, start winning early and then riders should lock into a continual form they shouldn't deviate from. No good or bad patches, just consistent results throughout their career, then they retire.

Basically be Lemond.

Coming from a different continent, having a disease, having poor technical skills does not compute, syntax error, system breakdown, must be a doper.

That's despite the acceptance that riders have been doping extensively for years and from early ages, which calls into question any riders 'progression', predictable and with a modest curve, or leaping around all over the place.

Best of all you need to be Southern European and attack all the time and then they don't really care what you drugs take to do it.
This is also my impression.

Also I'm wondering where this idea comes from that Lemonds progression was normal. It could have been normal, but also abnormal.

Since what is normal progression in cycling is unknown, since so many of those that have been observed have used drugs, I really wonder what their concept of normal is based upon.

And before anyone gets a stroke reading me saying Lemond could have been abnormal, to me being abnormal is not about drugs, but being outside what is the norm.
 
"Talent shows early" is a mantra used in The Clinic, and I'm not arguing against it, because historically it makes a lot of sense, beyond Lemond too.

However, regarding Froome, I would argue, that a good placement in GT's depends on many different factors, with natural strength only being one of many. He rode three GTs before his breakthrough in the Vuelta. Is that a big enough sample to draw much conclusions? Yes, Fignon went 15-7-1 in his first three GTs and Hinault even won his first three (looking at wikipedia, actually his first eight excluding an abandonment due to injury - goddammit that's impressive), but I'm not sure that's representative either. Roche, Impe or Ocana for example took a longer time to really develop as well (just going down the list of Tour winners on the wiki list, ignoring the EPO era).

I mean, maybe Froome isn't Hinault-good, but that doesn't mean he's a total fraud?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
1
0
Spalco, your thoughts about Riis, Cobo, Aitor Gonzalez, Santi Perez, Ricco etc? did you think they were clean?

Froome is a bigger fraud than all of them. The only one that is close to Froome when it comes to donkey-racehorse transformation is Wiggins.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY