The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Don't be late Pedro said:This. Is. Comedy. Gold.
Libertine Seguros said:Needs to be "Resistible" rather than "Remarkable", in reference to Brecht's "Der Aufhaltsame Ansteig des Arturo Ui" (translated as "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui"). It's a farce about gangsters.
Well, that and it's a mockery of the Nazis, which is perhaps not so appropriate. Also, Arturo's rise to prominence is much more like Wiggins' - planned out and opportunistic, not just thinking one day "you know what, I feel like monopolising the whole industry" and doing so just a day later.
I've stopped watching races with Froome in the start list. It's just not worth my time and effort. And then there's inevitably an argument in the Clinic, and people ignore just how unlikely the amount of stars aligning that is required would be, and we rinse and repeat.
I've made countless posts in this and other related threads regarding my stance on the matter. Plenty that I'm happy with, others that I'm not so happy with. Why do his fans need to go through pretending the 2008 Tour justified the transformation once more? Why do his detractors need to mock his 2009 Giro sidewinding or his 2010 Giro DQ again? It's a perpetual cycle, and each and every time he does it, we step further away from the time when he rose to prominence from obscurity at a level far greater than that of Riis, Mosquera, Kohl, Pérez, Nozal and so on. The nearest transformation we have to that of Fr
We have now seen two consecutive years of cycling completely and utterly dominated by one team, with an army of former nobodies who've transformed into a well-oiled machine. Some of which is reasonable, but a lot of which requires swallowing some pretty inconsistent stories riddled with holes, from guys who've told conflicting stories in the past, which makes them very difficult to believe, especially when there's so much suspicion around them and they don't do what they advertised they would (even if it's fair enough that they don't).
Lewis Hamilton was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix in 2009. There had been some incident with Jarno Trulli under the safety car. Hamilton told the press one story, and told the race stewards another. Trulli told both the same story. It is possible that both told the truth, and it is possible that both lied. But what's certain is that Hamilton lied, because the two stories were not consistent, and that's why he was the one punished when he was found to have been lying.
But you know, he'll do the same next month, the forum will go into meltdown as it's inundated with July fans, both pro- and anti-Sky, and the merry go round will continue. The same f***ing points will be made, rebutted, remade and re-rebutted a thousand f***ing times, Froome will continue to be ludicrous, fans will continue to shriek "where's the evidence?!" as if the team go around planting clues for Hercule Poirot to pick up as he follows the Tour, while pointing out that Chris freaking Froome doing 5,99W/kg every single day for a calendar year is not superhuman thus is obviously clean, detractors will continue to compare him insultingly to Mosquera, Kohl, Riis or Pérez (and I mean insultingly to them, they all had a much better respective pre-transformation palmarès), and another season will go by with six whole months of tedious Sky domination followed by an equally tedious six month discussion of said tedious Sky domination.
I don't know why I follow this sport sometimes. And now, sometimes, I don't actually follow this sport. Races with Froome in them just aren't worth following, you don't even need to read what happened. You just know. Where's the fun in that? What's the point in watching?
If I ever thought I could do it, I'd say I quit, and I'm not going to post on this or any related thread again. But I know that would be a lie. If I was Bradley Wiggins, I'd say it anyway, then pretend I didn't. But I'm not, and I know I'm liable to get sucked into another such argument, so I won't.
thehog said:Keep the faith.
I think all that can be done is laugh.
I used to get wound up by Armstrong. But now when I watch Froome I literally laugh at the TV.
I agree that he soils cycling but what else can you do?
Zam_Olyas said:Cycling is nice to view it as comedy. Some of the better cycling videos on youtube are the one with ridiculous performance.
Miburo said:i should feel sad when froome drops Contador but i always laugh. Maybe something mental with me, laughing to get over it. Could be.
Zam_Olyas said:The hell you bring contador.
Libertine Seguros said:Needs to be "Resistible" rather than "Remarkable", in reference to Brecht's "Der Aufhaltsame Ansteig des Arturo Ui" (translated as "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui"). It's a farce about gangsters.
Well, that and it's a mockery of the Nazis, which is perhaps not so appropriate. Also, Arturo's rise to prominence is much more like Wiggins' - planned out and opportunistic, not just thinking one day "you know what, I feel like monopolising the whole industry" and doing so just a day later.
I've stopped watching races with Froome in the start list. It's just not worth my time and effort. And then there's inevitably an argument in the Clinic, and people ignore just how unlikely the amount of stars aligning that is required would be, and we rinse and repeat.
I've made countless posts in this and other related threads regarding my stance on the matter. Plenty that I'm happy with, others that I'm not so happy with. Why do his fans need to go through pretending the 2008 Tour justified the transformation once more? Why do his detractors need to mock his 2009 Giro sidewinding or his 2010 Giro DQ again? It's a perpetual cycle, and each and every time he does it, we step further away from the time when he rose to prominence from obscurity at a level far greater than that of Riis, Mosquera, Kohl, Pérez, Nozal and so on. The nearest transformation we have to that of Froome is Wiggins, but Wiggins at least has the track focus justification to fall back on. Do we really need to discuss the characteristics of bilharzia once more just to conclude yet again that while it is quite likely Froome would be at greater risk than the rest of the péloton of contracting the disease and that its attacking of the red blood cells would clearly affect his cycling, it also is a disease which can be used in convenient ways to mask doping as it renders a baseline figure useless and essentially gives Froome a biopassport carte blanche? Especially when we've seen a post of various interviews from before and after the transformation that contradict each other completely on what this illness was, when it was contracted and what it does (ie Froome stating in June 2011 that he just had some chest infection and nothing more, which comes after not one but two dates he later explained he had been diagnosed with bilharzia - December 2010 and May 2011 if I recall correctly)?
We have now seen two consecutive years of cycling completely and utterly dominated by one team, with an army of former nobodies who've transformed into a well-oiled machine. Some of which is reasonable, but a lot of which requires swallowing some pretty inconsistent stories riddled with holes, from guys who've told conflicting stories in the past, which makes them very difficult to believe, especially when there's so much suspicion around them and they don't do what they advertised they would (even if it's fair enough that they don't).
Lewis Hamilton was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix in 2009. There had been some incident with Jarno Trulli under the safety car. Hamilton told the press one story, and told the race stewards another. Trulli told both the same story. It is possible that both told the truth, and it is possible that both lied. But what's certain is that Hamilton lied, because the two stories were not consistent, and that's why he was the one punished when he was found to have been lying. And that's what I get with Sky. It is certain that Froome has lied about his bilharzia, because his discussions of it are not consistent. I have advised on many occasions that I believe he had/has the disease and it is responsible in a large part for his 2009-11 down time. But I also don't believe at all that it is the only reason for Froome going from utter nobody (he had been benefiting from the marginal gains for 18 months before the Vuelta 2011, and with the apparent improvement in technical skills and racing knowledge you would expect his results to at least stagnate in this period if the marginal gains theory is to be believed) to unstoppable behemoth capable of dropping GT winners and known dopers at will. I also find it incredibly suspicious that this transformation took place when his contract was due, and that it coincides with the rise of British cyclists, because he was at the back of the queue for doling out opportunities behind a bunch of British Cycling pet projects like Thomas, Kennaugh and Swift, yet suddenly he's vaulted waaaaaaay ahead of these guys that Brailsford has been nurturing for years.
But you know, he'll do the same next month, the forum will go into meltdown as it's inundated with July fans, both pro- and anti-Sky, and the merry go round will continue. The same f***ing points will be made, rebutted, remade and re-rebutted a thousand f***ing times, Froome will continue to be ludicrous, fans will continue to shriek "where's the evidence?!" as if the team go around planting clues for Hercule Poirot to pick up as he follows the Tour, while pointing out that Chris freaking Froome doing 5,99W/kg every single day for a calendar year is not superhuman thus is obviously clean, detractors will continue to compare him insultingly to Mosquera, Kohl, Riis or Pérez (and I mean insultingly to them, they all had a much better respective pre-transformation palmarès), and another season will go by with six whole months of tedious Sky domination followed by an equally tedious six month discussion of said tedious Sky domination.
I don't know why I follow this sport sometimes. And now, sometimes, I don't actually follow this sport. Races with Froome in them just aren't worth following, you don't even need to read what happened. You just know. Where's the fun in that? What's the point in watching?
If I ever thought I could do it, I'd say I quit, and I'm not going to post on this or any related thread again. But I know that would be a lie. If I was Bradley Wiggins, I'd say it anyway, then pretend I didn't. But I'm not, and I know I'm liable to get sucked into another such argument, so I won't.
thehog said:You should know what race it is. You've been following him his whole career
God I love this picture.
Do you think Contador ever had to push a teammate?
Moose McKnuckles said:Excellent post, Libertine. Well said. I share your lack of motivation for watching these races with Froome. Normally, I would wake up early to watch a stage like today, but I thought, why? It's easy to figure out how it ends.
Sure enough.
We are at the point of thinking "anything can happen" in order to inject some modicum of suspense into the Tour. Sad, really. Cycling hasn't changed ONE bit.
webbie146 said:Froome was a fattie compared to how he currently looks huh
Don't be late Pedro said:This. Is. Comedy. Gold.
SundayRider said:what you mean its not normal to lose a lot of weight at age 26 when you already train X amount of thousands of KMs a year.
Libertine Seguros said:Needs to be "Resistible" rather than "Remarkable", in reference to Brecht's "Der Aufhaltsame Ansteig des Arturo Ui" (translated as "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui"). It's a farce about gangsters.
Well, that and it's a mockery of the Nazis, which is perhaps not so appropriate. Also, Arturo's rise to prominence is much more like Wiggins' - planned out and opportunistic, not just thinking one day "you know what, I feel like monopolising the whole industry" and doing so just a day later.
I've stopped watching races with Froome in the start list. It's just not worth my time and effort. And then there's inevitably an argument in the Clinic, and people ignore just how unlikely the amount of stars aligning that is required would be, and we rinse and repeat.
I've made countless posts in this and other related threads regarding my stance on the matter. Plenty that I'm happy with, others that I'm not so happy with. Why do his fans need to go through pretending the 2008 Tour justified the transformation once more? Why do his detractors need to mock his 2009 Giro sidewinding or his 2010 Giro DQ again? It's a perpetual cycle, and each and every time he does it, we step further away from the time when he rose to prominence from obscurity at a level far greater than that of Riis, Mosquera, Kohl, Pérez, Nozal and so on. The nearest transformation we have to that of Froome is Wiggins, but Wiggins at least has the track focus justification to fall back on. Do we really need to discuss the characteristics of bilharzia once more just to conclude yet again that while it is quite likely Froome would be at greater risk than the rest of the péloton of contracting the disease and that its attacking of the red blood cells would clearly affect his cycling, it also is a disease which can be used in convenient ways to mask doping as it renders a baseline figure useless and essentially gives Froome a biopassport carte blanche? Especially when we've seen a post of various interviews from before and after the transformation that contradict each other completely on what this illness was, when it was contracted and what it does (ie Froome stating in June 2011 that he just had some chest infection and nothing more, which comes after not one but two dates he later explained he had been diagnosed with bilharzia - December 2010 and May 2011 if I recall correctly)?
We have now seen two consecutive years of cycling completely and utterly dominated by one team, with an army of former nobodies who've transformed into a well-oiled machine. Some of which is reasonable, but a lot of which requires swallowing some pretty inconsistent stories riddled with holes, from guys who've told conflicting stories in the past, which makes them very difficult to believe, especially when there's so much suspicion around them and they don't do what they advertised they would (even if it's fair enough that they don't).
Lewis Hamilton was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix in 2009. There had been some incident with Jarno Trulli under the safety car. Hamilton told the press one story, and told the race stewards another. Trulli told both the same story. It is possible that both told the truth, and it is possible that both lied. But what's certain is that Hamilton lied, because the two stories were not consistent, and that's why he was the one punished when he was found to have been lying. And that's what I get with Sky. It is certain that Froome has lied about his bilharzia, because his discussions of it are not consistent. I have advised on many occasions that I believe he had/has the disease and it is responsible in a large part for his 2009-11 down time. But I also don't believe at all that it is the only reason for Froome going from utter nobody (he had been benefiting from the marginal gains for 18 months before the Vuelta 2011, and with the apparent improvement in technical skills and racing knowledge you would expect his results to at least stagnate in this period if the marginal gains theory is to be believed) to unstoppable behemoth capable of dropping GT winners and known dopers at will. I also find it incredibly suspicious that this transformation took place when his contract was due, and that it coincides with the rise of British cyclists, because he was at the back of the queue for doling out opportunities behind a bunch of British Cycling pet projects like Thomas, Kennaugh and Swift, yet suddenly he's vaulted waaaaaaay ahead of these guys that Brailsford has been nurturing for years.
But you know, he'll do the same next month, the forum will go into meltdown as it's inundated with July fans, both pro- and anti-Sky, and the merry go round will continue. The same f***ing points will be made, rebutted, remade and re-rebutted a thousand f***ing times, Froome will continue to be ludicrous, fans will continue to shriek "where's the evidence?!" as if the team go around planting clues for Hercule Poirot to pick up as he follows the Tour, while pointing out that Chris freaking Froome doing 5,99W/kg every single day for a calendar year is not superhuman thus is obviously clean, detractors will continue to compare him insultingly to Mosquera, Kohl, Riis or Pérez (and I mean insultingly to them, they all had a much better respective pre-transformation palmarès), and another season will go by with six whole months of tedious Sky domination followed by an equally tedious six month discussion of said tedious Sky domination.
I don't know why I follow this sport sometimes. And now, sometimes, I don't actually follow this sport. Races with Froome in them just aren't worth following, you don't even need to read what happened. You just know. Where's the fun in that? What's the point in watching?
If I ever thought I could do it, I'd say I quit, and I'm not going to post on this or any related thread again. But I know that would be a lie. If I was Bradley Wiggins, I'd say it anyway, then pretend I didn't. But I'm not, and I know I'm liable to get sucked into another such argument, so I won't.
the sceptic said:If you believe dawg is clean then you just have to ask yourself a couple of simple questions.
If he starts doping would he beat the record on every mountain?
Is he already beating other dopers consistenly? How much would he beat them if he started doping like them?
If he is clean then he is certainly one of the biggest talents in the history of the sport (see above), if so, why was he regarded as a bottom level pro until 2011?
the sceptic said:If you believe dawg is clean then you just have to ask yourself a couple of simple questions.
If he starts doping would he beat the record on every mountain?
Is he already beating other dopers consistenly? How much would he beat them if he started doping like them?
If he is clean then he is certainly one of the biggest talents in the history of the sport (see above), if so, why was he regarded as a bottom level pro until 2011?
Pentacycle said:Almost nobody here believes Froome is clean, you have to pretty ignorant to think the peloton isn't >90% dirty. What dawg's doing right now isn't to be within the human limit, or whatever's the reference nowadays, he actually rides within the limits of anti doping controls. Just like any other current GC rider under normal circumstances.(ie not on Vini F.)
I can't tell you who the biggest climbing talents in the peloton are, nobody here knows. What people around here can tell you is that Froome isn't one of the biggest talents, of course they do know that.
Ridiculous, if you ask me. Froome's a top cyclist like any other, and under current conditions(race tactics, UCI controls and training) he is the best rider in the world. If people don't like it, why the hell are they still watching?
vrusimov said:"We tremble when our radar screams during the 2011 Vuelta on the climb to Peña Cabarga (470 watts for 17 minutes) or to Planche des Belles Filles during the last Tour de France (467 watts for more than 15 minutes). Froome is usually more discreet, staying around 400-410 watts." - Not Normal?
Is this really the same fella who was furtively attached to a motorbike in the Giro the year before?
Libertine Seguros said:Needs to be "Resistible" rather than "Remarkable", in reference to Brecht's "Der Aufhaltsame Ansteig des Arturo Ui" (translated as "The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui"). It's a farce about gangsters.
Well, that and it's a mockery of the Nazis, which is perhaps not so appropriate. Also, Arturo's rise to prominence is much more like Wiggins' - planned out and opportunistic, not just thinking one day "you know what, I feel like monopolising the whole industry" and doing so just a day later.
I've stopped watching races with Froome in the start list. It's just not worth my time and effort. And then there's inevitably an argument in the Clinic, and people ignore just how unlikely the amount of stars aligning that is required would be, and we rinse and repeat.
I've made countless posts in this and other related threads regarding my stance on the matter. Plenty that I'm happy with, others that I'm not so happy with. Why do his fans need to go through pretending the 2008 Tour justified the transformation once more? Why do his detractors need to mock his 2009 Giro sidewinding or his 2010 Giro DQ again? It's a perpetual cycle, and each and every time he does it, we step further away from the time when he rose to prominence from obscurity at a level far greater than that of Riis, Mosquera, Kohl, Pérez, Nozal and so on. The nearest transformation we have to that of Froome is Wiggins, but Wiggins at least has the track focus justification to fall back on. Do we really need to discuss the characteristics of bilharzia once more just to conclude yet again that while it is quite likely Froome would be at greater risk than the rest of the péloton of contracting the disease and that its attacking of the red blood cells would clearly affect his cycling, it also is a disease which can be used in convenient ways to mask doping as it renders a baseline figure useless and essentially gives Froome a biopassport carte blanche? Especially when we've seen a post of various interviews from before and after the transformation that contradict each other completely on what this illness was, when it was contracted and what it does (ie Froome stating in June 2011 that he just had some chest infection and nothing more, which comes after not one but two dates he later explained he had been diagnosed with bilharzia - December 2010 and May 2011 if I recall correctly)?
We have now seen two consecutive years of cycling completely and utterly dominated by one team, with an army of former nobodies who've transformed into a well-oiled machine. Some of which is reasonable, but a lot of which requires swallowing some pretty inconsistent stories riddled with holes, from guys who've told conflicting stories in the past, which makes them very difficult to believe, especially when there's so much suspicion around them and they don't do what they advertised they would (even if it's fair enough that they don't).
Lewis Hamilton was disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix in 2009. There had been some incident with Jarno Trulli under the safety car. Hamilton told the press one story, and told the race stewards another. Trulli told both the same story. It is possible that both told the truth, and it is possible that both lied. But what's certain is that Hamilton lied, because the two stories were not consistent, and that's why he was the one punished when he was found to have been lying. And that's what I get with Sky. It is certain that Froome has lied about his bilharzia, because his discussions of it are not consistent. I have advised on many occasions that I believe he had/has the disease and it is responsible in a large part for his 2009-11 down time. But I also don't believe at all that it is the only reason for Froome going from utter nobody (he had been benefiting from the marginal gains for 18 months before the Vuelta 2011, and with the apparent improvement in technical skills and racing knowledge you would expect his results to at least stagnate in this period if the marginal gains theory is to be believed) to unstoppable behemoth capable of dropping GT winners and known dopers at will. I also find it incredibly suspicious that this transformation took place when his contract was due, and that it coincides with the rise of British cyclists, because he was at the back of the queue for doling out opportunities behind a bunch of British Cycling pet projects like Thomas, Kennaugh and Swift, yet suddenly he's vaulted waaaaaaay ahead of these guys that Brailsford has been nurturing for years.
But you know, he'll do the same next month, the forum will go into meltdown as it's inundated with July fans, both pro- and anti-Sky, and the merry go round will continue. The same f***ing points will be made, rebutted, remade and re-rebutted a thousand f***ing times, Froome will continue to be ludicrous, fans will continue to shriek "where's the evidence?!" as if the team go around planting clues for Hercule Poirot to pick up as he follows the Tour, while pointing out that Chris freaking Froome doing 5,99W/kg every single day for a calendar year is not superhuman thus is obviously clean, detractors will continue to compare him insultingly to Mosquera, Kohl, Riis or Pérez (and I mean insultingly to them, they all had a much better respective pre-transformation palmarès), and another season will go by with six whole months of tedious Sky domination followed by an equally tedious six month discussion of said tedious Sky domination.
I don't know why I follow this sport sometimes. And now, sometimes, I don't actually follow this sport. Races with Froome in them just aren't worth following, you don't even need to read what happened. You just know. Where's the fun in that? What's the point in watching?
If I ever thought I could do it, I'd say I quit, and I'm not going to post on this or any related thread again. But I know that would be a lie. If I was Bradley Wiggins, I'd say it anyway, then pretend I didn't. But I'm not, and I know I'm liable to get sucked into another such argument, so I won't.
Cycle Chic said:I also appreciate your excellent writing skills and info...I only watch the racing now for the comedy factor - its like watching a train wreck...Froome will soon do a Rasmussen and dope himself overboard.