wow. refuse to believe that froome, sky & porte are that clueless, so must be jedi mind tricks.
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!
Gregga said:Sub 31 on the Madone, do you realize what it means ?
spalco said:That Froome is a little bit faster than Tom Danielson?
Gregga said:Sub 31 on the Madone, do you realize what it means ?
FoxxyBrown1111 said:I am on your side. I have read your interesting post you linked at your signature. Good job.
Even without all the knowledge you have shown in your article, i already defended Froome last year around the same time. For me his results were/are plausible if seen in context with his unusual career path. BTW: the only uneasy feeling i have with a Sky rider is Wiggins. The rest who show up in the so-called "Skyborg"-Train showed talent/and results with other teams before (example Knees finishing T-20-TdF w/Milram, Rogers multiple times T-20, EBH being a great talent early like Sagan, Porte in the Giro T-10, Sivtsov while with HTC multiple T-20 in GT´s, so was Uran, Cataldo, and so on).
And i think most guys here know i am very suspicious about sudden and stark improvements by riders in a relative high age (like Mosquera, Armstrong of course, Rominger, Rijs, to name a few). I agree mostly with the "Clinic-12-Apostel" like "hog" or "RR" for example. But i think they are a little harsh/over the line with team Sky. It´s normal that the teams with the highest payroll dominate (be it baseball or soccer, you name it). It´s called pro sports.
But: I would never guarantee Froome is totally clean. Of course at Sky they push the lines as much they can (as all the teams do). OTOH, which high paid, highly trained, or highly educated persons don´t push the lines in politics, business or sports? Welcome to the real world.
By knowing that, Froome is a deserving champ. He surely isn´t worse than those liars/ignorants and protected riders from spain like Valv-Piti, AC, SSanchez, etc.!
Conclusion: Go Froome.
ianfra said:Wrong again Garlic Ho. Wiggins dropped out because he was not prepared to train at the intensity required to retain his title. As a decent and honest family man he wanted more time with his family. His motivation had gone. End of story. As for your constant ravings about Wiggo/Froome on dope, they're looking more off the wall as each day passes.
hiero2 said:I have to respond to this: Many, probably most, posters on the CN forums treat their opinions as fact. Especially on the doping front. Very few EVER start with "in my opinion". Nope, its always much more sure of itself than that.
Now - having said that - we, the READERS who may also be posters have enough sense and maturity, one hopes, that we can read such opinions and realize they are opinions. And treat them as such. Unfortunately, it seems that many readers are just as set on being "right" as the many posters who post opinion as unadulterated fact.
Hugh Januss said:"Why would I, someone who has come back from essentially a death sentence put something that dangerous in my body?"
Guess who's words these are?
webbie146 said:Armstrong would still be faster considering he did the Madone on a non-aero bike in 99 that was heavy as **** compared to the bikes the use now.
Galic Ho said:Arrggghhhh. Specific language is your forte then.
Since when did people have to address their post with the starting acronym IMO?
Does not doing so qualify a forumists post as fact? Nope, like you said it is down to the reader. But my point to you stands. ianfra has a grudge against me. I deleted his PM to me from April yesterday, but it should still be on the server. Have a good read if you want. There were two. Another person who took 'personal' offence to something said about people he/she/it claims to know.
Yes that is right. ianfra claimed to be in personal contact with numerous Sky riders who are hurt by the Clinic. We should all feel sorry them now shouldn't we? It's not like a multi-million pound contract with trimmings can cushion the ego right?
PS: He will spam you like crazy. A lot of the Sky fans will. It's going to get worse before it gets better. It is July after all.
Interesting reading..webbie146 said:HE DID A SUB 31 ON THE MADONE?? This tdf is over -.-
What was Lance his record time there? I remember Lance saying he did around 495 watts for 30 minutes, but his weight was higher then Froome's.
Edit: "Rominger set a time of 31.25 on the Madone in 1996 and the record stood until Lance Armstrong did 30.47 just before the 1999 Tour de France, a clue he was going to “win” that year."
So Froome actually went sub 31 too? Might have had a tailwind but damn.. That's sick
If 31 min performance was enough to win the tdf in 99 it will def be enough to win it in 2013..
LOL!
It get's even better.
Quote from Kerrison: "It is known that when Porte won the 9.4km time trial up the Col d'Eze in a little more than 19 minutes to win Paris-Nice in March, he averaged 400 watts. He was then 62.5kg, against his 61kg when he rode his time trial up the Col de la Madone last Sunday. He is still 61kg.
Kerrison did not elaborate on Porte's training data, including his Col de la Madone time; other than to say Porte ''is now averaging the same or more at a lower weight, which is only going to translate into significantly more impressive climbing than what we saw earlier in the season''.
Kerrison did not hide how impressed he was by Porte's time trial up the Col de la Madone, especially considering he flew on a standard training road bike. Whereas Froome raced up the climb on a bike set up for a mountain time trial, this including the addition of aero ''tri-bars''.
Kerrison added that Porte's ride was ''probably in the top three most impressive training efforts I've ever seen any athlete do.
''I have witnessed Bradley and Chris do some impressive things, but [with] Richie … that effort was on a par with anything I have seen from these guys. I can't say he is going better than Chris. Chris went faster, but on a different set-up, a mountain time-trial set-up. So we can't compare performances.''
Froome and Porte to destory everyone :O
Armstrong would still be faster considering he did the Madone on a non-aero bike in 99 that was heavy as **** compared to the bikes the use now.
Worthless coach, he doesnt even spot worldclass talent in front of his own nose.FrankChickens said:Anyone seen the Froome article in the Guardian? Quite a bit of comment from Gareth Edwards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/22/chris-froome-tour-de-france
andy1234 said:Armstrongs 99 bike might have been lighter than those used today.
The weight limit came in, in 2000, and some of the bikes used previous to that, were lighter than the 6.8kg limit.
timmers said:Well unless Froome or Porte tests positive its going to get worse for you! Why waste all this knowledge on an anonymous internet forum? Share your knowledge with the relevant ADA's. Sorry, I forgot you are just a sad man in a macintosh! Get a life!
PS Your evidence and facts are **** because there is no evidence (yet).
andy1234 said:Armstrongs 99 bike might have been lighter than those used today.
The weight limit came in, in 2000, and some of the bikes used previous to that, were lighter than the 6.8kg limit.
Galic Ho said:They were about the same weight depending on manufacturer. Still good bikes to use. Even though webbie146 says they were a lot heavier, I don't remember them being that much heavier. With what Lance was on that year it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
One way to find out. Ask him. He'd still have the bike.
http://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-france-bicycles-historical-bike-weights/Galic Ho said:They were about the same weight depending on manufacturer. Still good bikes to use. Even though webbie146 says they were a lot heavier, I don't remember them being that much heavier. With what Lance was on that year it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
One way to find out. Ask him. He'd still have the bike.
webbie146 said:No in 1999 he used a Trek 5500 that was definitely way heavier then the limit today:
"Armstrong's first Tour de France win in 1999 came aboard Trek's 5500 model – it was the first time a rider raced the Tour on a carbon bike from start to finish, according to Trek. It would be another year until the UCI instituted their 6.8kg (14.99lb) minimum bike weight rule, and 1999 was the the last year Armstrong would race with a threaded headset. Daubert told us that Armstrong's bike, seen below, weighed 8.6kg (18.9lb)."
8.6kg instead of 6.8kg these days. 1.8kg heavier almost 2kg. Would save him big time on the Madone. in 2000 Lance got a 5900 that was a fair bit lighter, but 1999 was the year Armstrong set the record.
Also got to consider the power transmission was not as great as it is now, and it was not aero at all. Also gear choice was limited to 9 speed instead of 11 speed now.
webbie146 said:the 5500 he rode in 1999 was introduced in 1992/1993.
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Galic Ho said:Right. I must be getting his 2000 or 2001 model mixed up then. I swore it was around 7 kilos.
That is what I remember about Armstrong's 99 Trek. That it was Titanium. But I mixed the road bike and TT bike up. Was the TT bike not the road bike. My bad.
Edit: Ahaha, if this article is correct Andy Schleck wasn't using electronic shifters in 2010. Chaingate hey....
hrotha said:I find that hard to believe. The weight limit was introduced because bikes were starting to go below what would become the proposed weight, not to force manufacturers who were manufacturing juggernauts to make lighter bikes. 8.6 kg is way too heavy.
spalco said:That Froome is a little bit faster than Tom Danielson?