Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Ripper]

... blah blah blah blah ...

Of course, you could opt not to see what posters in a clinic thread about Froome write about him. Then again, that would require one not to be trolling for reactions

 

[thehog]

If Froome got popped to tomorrow nobody would defend him.

Everyone would say "thought as much".

If Pinot or TVG got popped your have a lot of people not agreeing or sitting on the fence.

The Dawg is making a joke of cycling. The UCI have to do something.

Pat has stand tall and be bold.

Test the Dawg.

 

[gooner]

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.

Top post as usual.

I watched the Dauphine as usual and looking at it, I'm as disillusioned as I ever was. We're talking about a guy in Contador who Martinelli once said is better than Armstong and will go on to become the best GT rider of all time. Yet a guy who came out of the middle of nowhere is dropping him now and will continue to do so in the Tour based on what we seen so far.

Lets go back to 2009/2010. What if someone said Froome would be a future GT winner and would win nearly everything in sight in 2013 and drop Contador in the process. They would nearly send for the white coats for you at the thought of the suggestion.

It has added more to my scepticism in the sport than ever before and an example was Navarro performing in the Dauphine yesterday. It maybe nothing like Froome but to see him attacking Contador setting a train definitely sets the alarm bells off for me.

At this rate I won't be watching the Tour one bit.

Had enough.

 

[Fatclimber]

.......

At this rate I won't be watching the Tour one bit.

Had enough.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Anybody that's been here any length of time has said that multiple times. But we're all still here like a bunch of geeked out heroine addicts. See you in a month.

 

[vrusimov]

Top post as usual.

I watched the Dauphine as usual and looking at it, I'm as disillusioned as I ever was. We're talking about a guy in Contador who Martinelli once said is better than Armstong and will go on to become the best GT rider of all time. Yet a guy who came out of the middle of nowhere is dropping him now and will continue to do so in the Tour based on what we seen so far.

Lets go back to 2009/2010. What if someone said Froome would be a future GT winner and would win nearly everything in sight in 2013 and drop Contador in the process. They would nearly send for the white coats for you at the thought of the suggestion.

It has added more to my scepticism in the sport than ever before and an example was Navarro performing in the Dauphine yesterday. It maybe nothing like Froome but to see him attacking Contador setting a train definitely sets the alarm bells off for me.

At this rate I won't be watching the Tour one bit.

Had enough.

There is an interesting bit in Not Normal about the propensity for Sky to send riders to elevation and that high altitude blood samples are not used in policing of the blood passport system (hematocrit), further it shows quite clearly that Wiggins won the 2012 Tour putting out less wattage than he did in 2009 when he came fourth. I'm sorry but it looks fairly obvious that the top riders (especially those who finished well on Verbier) were juiced in 2009, the average falls off quite precipitously the following year, especially in 2011, when Evans wins and no rider averages over 400W. 2012 the average rises again to 415W.

RESULT
Stage 15: Pontarlier - Verbier 207.5km
1. Alberto Contador (Spa) Astana in 5-03-58
2. Andy Schleck (Lux) Saxo Bank at 43 seconds
3. Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas at at 1-03 minutes
4. Frank Schleck (Lux) Saxo Bank at 1-06 minutes
5. Bradley Wiggins (GB) Garmin-Slipstream at 1-06 minutes
6. Carlos Sastre (Spa) Cervelo Test Team at 1-06 minutes
7. Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence Lotto at 1-26 minutes
8. Andréas Klöden (Ger) Astana at 1-29 minutes
9. Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana at 1-35 minutes
10. Kim Kirchen (Lux) Columbia HTC at 1-55 minutes
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...our-explodes-to-life.html#ZlmDDkMyx7HKqVao.99

Wiggins in particular gives a 460W performance for over 22 min, riding with Schleck, Nibali, Sastre and ahead of Evans, Armstrong, Kloden (three of these guys have doped either by confession or adverse analytical finding). Just two years removed from finishing grupetto and only formally concentrating on the road starting in 2009. He is up amongst the "best and enhanced" after one year.
Average Tour wattage 2009:

Contador 440[*]
A. Schleck 435

F. Schleck 430[*]
V. Nibali

L. Armstrong[*] 425 = Contador [*]2007 with Rasmussen
B. Wiggins [wins 2012 at 415W]
A. Kloden [*]

 

[blackcat]

If Froome got popped to tomorrow nobody would defend him.

Everyone would say "thought as much".

If Pinot or TVG got popped your have a lot of people not agreeing or sitting on the fence.

The Dawg is making a joke of cycling. The UCI have to do something.

Pat has stand tall and be bold.

Test the Dawg.

test the hog

 

[blackcat]

Top post as usual.

I watched the Dauphine as usual and looking at it, I'm as disillusioned as I ever was. We're talking about a guy in Contador who Martinelli once said is better than Armstong and will go on to become the best GT rider of all time. Yet a guy who came out of the middle of nowhere is dropping him now and will continue to do so in the Tour based on what we seen so far.

Lets go back to 2009/2010. What if someone said Froome would be a future GT winner and would win nearly everything in sight in 2013 and drop Contador in the process. They would nearly send for the white coats for you at the thought of the suggestion.

It has added more to my scepticism in the sport than ever before and an example was Navarro performing in the Dauphine yesterday. It maybe nothing like Froome but to see him attacking Contador setting a train definitely sets the alarm bells off for me.

At this rate I won't be watching the Tour one bit.

Had enough.

well, Eddy Mazzoleni and the Buffalo Gutierrez did some sit down stand up sit down humour at the Giro one year. think that was the year Ullich ordered another blood bag during the Giro from Fuentes.

 

[Lanark]

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?

I agree with this. Personally, I don't doubt for one second that Froome and the rest of Sky's top dogs are doping. Personally I take their results as one big joke. But that doesn't stop me from watching the Dauphiné, because I've been watching (and have been aware of that) fairy tales for the last 15 years.

I feel that a lot (although there are always genuine exceptions, we all know people like Hrotha, Libertine or the Hitch are intellectually honest) of resentment against Froome is because he is the first rider since 2007 who is actually better than forum favorite Contador. When I look at Froome dropping Contador I don't see that as some crime against humanity, I'm just sad that Contador isn't serving a lifetime ban already. and that Froome isn't caught. Discussions about the 'real' talent of athletes reveal nothing except the preference of the people debating.

More in the area of speculation, although I don't believe the peloton is even remotely clean, I don't think the gains to be had by doping are that huge that you can overcome great differences in talent (assuming all top riders are doping to the limit that tests allow them, a fair assumption). When I see Wiggins and Froome, I mostly see guys who started on the big programs fairly late in life, Wiggins because he was clowning around in a undeveloped section of the sport where you can probably win clean (track) untill he became a road star, Froome because he was desperate at the end of a contract. A lot of other top riders (Nibali, Contador, Valverde etc.) only look more legit because they started doping at a much earlier age, not because they are cleaner.

I can't wait for Sky to get caught, especially their holier than thou act is sickening. But if the only result of them getting caught is that guys like Contador and Nibali win, I don't think we're one step closer to a clean of believable peloton.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I agree with this. Personally, I don't doubt for one second that Froome and the rest of Sky's top dogs are doping. Personally I take their results as one big joke. But that doesn't stop me from watching the Dauphiné, because I've been watching (and have been aware of that) fairy tales for the last 15 years.

I feel that a lot (although there are always genuine exceptions, we all know people like Hrotha, Libertine or the Hitch are intellectually honest) of resentment against Froome is because he is the first rider since 2007 who is actually better than forum favorite Contador. When I look at Froome dropping Contador I don't see that as some crime against humanity, I'm just sad that Contador isn't serving a lifetime ban already. and that Froome isn't caught. Discussions about the 'real' talent of athletes reveal nothing except the preference of the people debating.

More in the area of speculation, although I don't believe the peloton is even remotely clean, I don't think the gains to be had by doping are that huge that you can overcome great differences in talent (assuming all top riders are doping to the limit that tests allow them, a fair assumption). When I see Wiggins and Froome, I mostly see guys who started on the big programs fairly late in life, Wiggins because he was clowning around in a undeveloped section of the sport where you can probably win clean (track) untill he became a road star, Froome because he was desperate at the end of a contract. A lot of other top riders (Nibali, Contador, Valverde etc.) only look more legit because they started doping at a much earlier age, not because they are cleaner.

I can't wait for Sky to get caught, especially their holier than thou act is sickening. But if the only result of them getting caught is that guys like Contador and Nibali win, I don't think we're one step closer to a clean of believable peloton.

sensible view. The characters have changed, but the m.o stays the same.

Still I would say the current stage race dominance takes us to a new level.

The outcome of a stage race is now more predictable than whether Barcelona or Madrid wins the La Liga.

 

[airstream]

Not to admit a rider just cos' he beats your riders and even refuse to watch the races - I haven't read a bigger absurd. I'd personally watch the prestigious races with any faces because sport itself is way more significant than one or another rider.

Libertine you are a vulnerable person. I didn't expect that

test the hog

on sanity?

 

[blackcat]

Not to admit a rider just cos' he beats your riders and even refuse to watch the races - I haven't read a bigger absurd. I'd personally watch the prestigious races with any faces because sport itself is way more significant than one or another rider.

Libertine you are a vulnerable person. I didn't expect that


on sanity?

yep. and polygraph

 

[Bexon30]

I was rewatching some old footage from the 2011 TdSuisse. Some obscure rider attacks from the group of favourites on Crans montana, only to be reeled back in by team Schleck. Some say he isn't a real climber, only to become one after obtaining mutant strength in the '11 Vuelta.

At 34 minutes in we see Froomes attack blow up and him head backwards. He sustained the attack for 1-2 kilometres and looked at his limit afterwards. The comparison to now is scary as he never looks beaten. I hope he pushes himself to maximum during the Tour because the alarm bells will not stop ringing and maybe he will fail a test. Failing that if he goes too far into the red he may lose a chunk of time the following day. Although that's unlikely now. The improvement between the 2 Froomes is laughable. Sky will have some tough questions to dodge come the end of July.

 

[jens_attacks]

There is an interesting bit in Not Normal about the propensity for Sky to send riders to elevation and that high altitude blood samples are not used in policing of the blood passport system (hematocrit), further it shows quite clearly that Wiggins won the 2012 Tour putting out less wattage than he did in 2009 when he came fourth. I'm sorry but it looks fairly obvious that the top riders (especially those who finished well on Verbier) were juiced in 2009, the average falls off quite precipitously the following year, especially in 2011, when Evans wins and no rider averages over 400W. 2012 the average rises again to 415W.

RESULT
Stage 15: Pontarlier - Verbier 207.5km
1. Alberto Contador (Spa) Astana in 5-03-58
2. Andy Schleck (Lux) Saxo Bank at 43 seconds
3. Vincenzo Nibali (Ita) Liquigas at at 1-03 minutes
4. Frank Schleck (Lux) Saxo Bank at 1-06 minutes
5. Bradley Wiggins (GB) Garmin-Slipstream at 1-06 minutes
6. Carlos Sastre (Spa) Cervelo Test Team at 1-06 minutes
7. Cadel Evans (Aus) Silence Lotto at 1-26 minutes
8. Andréas Klöden (Ger) Astana at 1-29 minutes
9. Lance Armstrong (USA) Astana at 1-35 minutes
10. Kim Kirchen (Lux) Columbia HTC at 1-55 minutes
Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...our-explodes-to-life.html#ZlmDDkMyx7HKqVao.99

Wiggins in particular gives a 460W performance for over 22 min, riding with Schleck, Nibali, Sastre and ahead of Evans, Armstrong, Kloden (three of these guys have doped either by confession or adverse analytical finding). Just two years removed from finishing grupetto and only formally concentrating on the road starting in 2009. He is up amongst the "best and enhanced" after one year.
Average Tour wattage 2009:

Contador 440[*]
A. Schleck 435

F. Schleck 430[*]
V. Nibali

L. Armstrong[*] 425 = Contador [*]2007 with Rasmussen
B. Wiggins [wins 2012 at 415W]
A. Kloden [*]

vrusimov, unfortunately, to my knowledge, portoleau never ever took in account a huge, important factor. and that is the difficulty of the route of the grand tour

in 2009 until the verbier(STAGE 15!!!!!!!) there was absolutely nothing happening between the favourites(only last 2 kms of arcalis or something). so it's absolutely logical that in a grand tour with so little battles of the favourites, the power outputs will be higher. same for giro d'italia 2009. same for giro d'italia 2006.

people should realize also that hautacam 1996 was possible not only because of the huge tailwind blowing through the veins but also because the route. it was THE ONLY real battle of the tour. one climb.

being so direspectful to the champions of the sport, i never agreed with those people anyway. but even the calculations i think there are many factors not taken seriously. but hey it's all about sensationalism...hopefully there were many magazines sold

 

[Cycle Chic]

Froome to Rogers

At 6kms to go in yesterdays stage Froome said something to Rogers. Wonder what that was all about ??

and a classic from Inner Ring..

the Inner Ring ‏@inrng20h

Froome climbs in his usual style, elbows bent as if pushing a supermarket trolley, head tilted like he's wedging a phone on his shoulder

 

[Froome19]

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)?

Nice post.

Just as a reference do you know where Froome stated in June 2011 that he had a chest infection? Purely out of interest as I haven't seen it yet and such a quote would change a lot

 

[Tinman]

I could watch the Dauphine on tv, but I'd rather read about it and laugh.

Where I am at. very selectively deciding what to watch. Anything with blatant stupid Sky domination is just a massive turnoff.

Sadly I cant see Cookson clean up on predisposing diseases and resultant invalidation of BP, as well as TUE transparency. Particularly when it concerns BC and Sky.

 

[Casualfan]

Top post as usual.

I watched the Dauphine as usual and looking at it, I'm as disillusioned as I ever was. We're talking about a guy in Contador who Martinelli once said is better than Armstong and will go on to become the best GT rider of all time. Yet a guy who came out of the middle of nowhere is dropping him now and will continue to do so in the Tour based on what we seen so far.

Lets go back to 2009/2010. What if someone said Froome would be a future GT winner and would win nearly everything in sight in 2013 and drop Contador in the process. They would nearly send for the white coats for you at the thought of the suggestion.

It has added more to my scepticism in the sport than ever before and an example was Navarro performing in the Dauphine yesterday. It maybe nothing like Froome but to see him attacking Contador setting a train definitely sets the alarm bells off for me.

At this rate I won't be watching the Tour one bit.

Had enough.

Sorry, but the "best GT rider of all time" doesn't finish outside of the top 60 and over 3 minutes down in a time trial. You can't compare Contador because evidently he is not on top form yet. It could just be that Froome is in better shape now. When Froome starts dropping Contador in the Tour, fair enough.

 

[Galic Ho]

Where I am at. very selectively deciding what to watch. Anything with blatant stupid Sky domination is just a massive turnoff.

Sadly I cant see Cookson clean up on predisposing diseases and resultant invalidation of BP, as well as TUE transparency. Particularly when it concerns BC and Sky.

I am going to let this July play itself out. I have plenty of other things to do. I honestly don't know with all my training and study how I will be able to stay up to 1-2am every night and be up at 6am.

Looks like I might be giving the Tour a rest...or watching snippets.

As for Cookson...yeah it smells bad. He is bad enough to make the prospect of keeping Pat McQuaid in as UCI head seem like a good idea. That's how bad the prospect of a Brit controlling the UCI is ATM.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

That's how bad the prospect of a Brit controlling the UCI is ATM.

Good to see that you have returned as bigoted as when you left. Shame you didn't at least spend your time off studying statistics.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Nice post.

Just as a reference do you know where Froome stated in June 2011 that he had a chest infection? Purely out of interest as I haven't seen it yet and such a quote would change a lot

This post from FGL is pretty useful -

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1210835&postcount=1249

You can even choose to ignore the editorializing if you so wish, though it's all very reasonable. Sources are pulled together from Team Sky's official bulletins, velonews, bicycling and velonation, and show the contradictions in the official timeline about where bilharzia was discussed, mentioned, and diagnosed.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not to admit a rider just cos' he beats your riders and even refuse to watch the races - I haven't read a bigger absurd. I'd personally watch the prestigious races with any faces because sport itself is way more significant than one or another rider.

Libertine you are a vulnerable person. I didn't expect that


on sanity?

Well, airstream, I don't watch the prestigious races because they're prestigious, I watch cycling because it entertains me, big race or small race. When it consistently fails to entertain me, I start to become disillusioned. Does that not seem fair?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Well, airstream, I don't watch the prestigious races because they're prestigious, I watch cycling because it entertains me, big race or small race. When it consistently fails to entertain me, I start to become disillusioned. Does that not seem fair?

Cycling is like watching the Wizard of Oz as a kid...
When the curtain is finally lifted and you see it's really just some guy (Ferrari, Puerto, take your pick) pulling all the levers it loses its magic somewhat.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Well, airstream, I don't watch the prestigious races because they're prestigious, I watch cycling because it entertains me, big race or small race. When it consistently fails to entertain me, I start to become disillusioned. Does that not seem fair?

I'm yet to read the first of your 12.000 posts describing how a race has entertained you...

 

[thehog]

This post from FGL is pretty useful -

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1210835&postcount=1249

You can even choose to ignore the editorializing if you so wish, though it's all very reasonable. Sources are pulled together from Team Sky's official bulletins, velonews, bicycling and velonation, and show the contradictions in the official timeline about where bilharzia was discussed, mentioned, and diagnosed.

Does anyone know when "officially" Badzhilla was introduced as the backstory?

Was it at the Vuelta 2011?

 

[Skibby the bush kangaroo]

Does anyone know when "officially" Badzhilla was introduced as the backstory?

Was it at the Vuelta 2011?

Yes end of August 2011. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-hopes-to-keep-vuelta-lead-as-long-as-possible