Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[martinvickers]

Apperently Froome did 6.39 W/Kg yesterday, a belgian specialist said that.

that's a meaningless stat without the length of effort.

the 'magic' 6.0 W/kg is magic for a 40 minute effort.

 

[the sceptic]

that's a meaningless stat without the length of effort.

the 'magic' 6.0 W/kg is magic for a 40 minute effort.

dont forget the 100 kph tailwind

 

[whittashau]

that's a meaningless stat without the length of effort.

the 'magic' 6.0 W/kg is magic for a 40 minute effort.

and the fact that it was the 3rd fasted in history on that climb and only slightly slower than the great Lance Armstrong?

 

[darwin553]

I simply love it that you don't understand Cadel has worse managerial choices than a tenuous link with LA> You really don't know much about cycling, now do you?



Nope, I actually follow cycling a few decennia. But the 2000's were bad. Not just LA, but certain team from Andy Rihs was also important.

Oh.... wait... isn't Andy stil involved with a certain cycling team?

So that automatically makes Cadel a doper? You serious? too funny

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Eurosport says that Froome volunteered himself to take his drug test before the yellow jersey competition. Has brailsford found a new margin for gains?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Dear oh dear you guys really should go out and ride your bikes more,try and get rid of all that bitterness that's eating you up inside.
After all,you don't actually know anything,it's all suspicion and supposition.
If anyone from sky get's caught for doping then fair play,jump all over them.I'll be there with you.But until then all this endless,hate filled rhetoric seems a bit pointless to me.Save your energy for riding your bikes,enjoy the scenery and don't take things so seriously!
That's my ten bobs worth

Well let's see, he's got the "go ride your bike", the "bitter haters", the "never failed a doping test" and the "no evidence", that was right out of the Lance Armstrong fanboy handbook.

This is really all quite entertaining.

 

[lemoogle]

So that automatically makes Cadel a doper? You serious? too funny

You realise noone is saying he's a doper 100%, just that there is some info that may point to the fact that he's not clean. We're not even saying that about sky, (I mean there's still the chance froome is a robot sent back by skynet or something).

But don't come here and shout that some people are 100% clean faww shuuuuureee, just because you're australian and you don't think australians dope.

 

[oldcrank]

and the fact that it was the 3rd fasted in history on that climb and only slightly slower than the great Lance Armstrong?

It has been pointed out several times that while Chris' time was on the first difficult stage in the first week, your hero's time was from a stage later in the race after several hard days.

 

[the sceptic]

It has been pointed out several times that while Chris' time was on the first difficult stage in the first week, your hero's time was from a stage later in the race after several hard days.

2001 stage was easier. Lance only peaked for the tour while Dawg peaks all year round. It works both ways

 

[lemoogle]

Dear oh dear you guys really should go out and ride your bikes more,try and get rid of all that bitterness that's eating you up inside.
After all,you don't actually know anything,it's all suspicion and supposition.
If anyone from sky get's caught for doping then fair play,jump all over them.I'll be there with you.But until then all this endless,hate filled rhetoric seems a bit pointless to me.Save your energy for riding your bikes,enjoy the scenery and don't take things so seriously!
That's my ten bobs worth

And they're supposed to be caught doping by people who are supposed to magically wait for a test to show up in their magical cupboard?

You realize even the UCI has a suspicion index ( no matter how BS it is really )
Why should we close our eyes and "enjoy" whatever this is we are watching.

 

[oldcrank]

Lance Armstrong

Some people just can't let their hero go.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It has been pointed out several times that while Chris' time was on the first difficult stage in the first week, your hero's time was from a stage later in the race after several hard days.

HWSNBN didn't have to climb Pailhères first though.

 

[lemoogle]

HWSNBN

I had to google that

 

[Ferminal]

Uhh, 2001 was a very slow stage, the only reasonable warm up climb was near the start, and it was after the first rest day. Lance would have had at least one BB within five days of the stage.

 

[darwin553]

You realise noone is saying he's a doper 100%, just that there is some info that may point to the fact that he's not clean. We're not even saying that about sky, (I mean there's still the chance froome is a robot sent back by skynet or something).

But don't come here and shout that some people are 100% clean faww shuuuuureee, just because you're australian and you don't think australians dope.

Then you ought to all see how farcical it is to damage Cadel's reputation on the basis of an off-chance you may be right!! But then again history tells us different, doesn't it?

 

[lemoogle]

Then you ought to all see how farcical it is to damage Cadel's reputation on the basis of an off-chance you may be right!! But then again history tells us different, doesn't it?

Except this is a Froome thread... you seem to be the one bringing up Autralian riders being clean whenever you can

 

[Alphabet]

Was that the best the other guys have to offer this Tour? Froome was never in trouble and he responded to those Quintana attacks with ease.

 

[the sceptic]

Thats pretty much it. Froome will have 5+ minutes before the next stage that could cause him trouble

 

[hiero2]

Was that the best the other guys have to offer this Tour? Froome was never in trouble and he responded to those Quintana attacks with ease.

Thats pretty much it. Froome will have 5+ minutes before the next stage that could cause him trouble

With ease? Hmmmm. Looked to me like he was in some bother to do the response, but he didn't have much choice, if he wanted to stay in yellow.

I should bookmark your posts here for my personal reference, to come back in a week or so and see how things look then. It could be very interesting to remember this crystal-balling, imo. But we will see.

 

[hulkgogan]

Of course, but that Froome improved was not what raised eyebrows, it was the nature of the improvement: to a level that about three people including his mother thought he could reach, and overnight. The levels of improvement by riders at Sky have been sudden and often severe.

Not even his mom.

"Jane Froome had her doubts confirmed when, watching him ride for the first time in that same race, she saw her son being shelled from the back of the peloton. As Edwards drove the team car she asked him a gentle yet pointed question: "Is Chris any good at riding a bike?""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jun/22/chris-froome-tour-de-france

 

[Alphabet]

With ease? Hmmmm. Looked to me like he was in some bother to do the response, but he didn't have much choice, if he wanted to stay in yellow.

I should bookmark your posts here for my personal reference, to come back in a week or so and see how things look then. It could be very interesting to remember this crystal-balling, imo. But we will see.

Well, he didn't let Quintana get a gap, he would jump on his wheel straight away.

Don't be an after-eventer!

Just remember that pretty much everybody had Froome pencilled in for a crushing victory by the end of Ax-3-Domaines, not just me and sceptic.

 

[vrusimov]

Of course their performances were extraordinary. Are they believable? To me they still are for now.

So many people knew this would happen, so why act surprised about it now? What's surprising is Evans and Contador cracking that hard, not Froome attacking and winning.

No one is surprised that Froome won. No one that has suspicions about his performances that is. Some in the Clinic have sarcastically predicted Froome AND Porte's coming dominance and those prognostications have proven rather prescient at present. If Froome and Sky want to proffer how clean they are then yesterday was large step in the wrong direction. If Wiggins' numbers are where he said they were and he was at the tour then I wonder how yesterday would have gone down. Maybe a Sky 1-2-3? How would that have looked to all fans of clean cycling? There are 3 levels at the tour if yesterday is any indication ... there is Froome, Porte and all the rest. Under Armstrong's reign, everyone looked weak...starting at Sestrieres in 1999.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Some people just can't let their hero go.

And some just move on to a new flame, who they follow with the same blind passion with which they did the last, even to incorporating the same talking points.

 

[the sceptic]

With ease? Hmmmm. Looked to me like he was in some bother to do the response, but he didn't have much choice, if he wanted to stay in yellow.

I should bookmark your posts here for my personal reference, to come back in a week or so and see how things look then. It could be very interesting to remember this crystal-balling, imo. But we will see.

Hell take 1 minute at least in each ITT and 1 minute on ventoux.

 

[Fatclimber]

that's a meaningless stat without the length of effort.

the 'magic' 6.0 W/kg is magic for a 40 minute effort.

armstrong's numbers for the climb to Bonsacre according to Vayer:

'01 - 6.45. 23:07
'03 - 6.36. 23:25
'05 - 6.46. 21:58

It was the second climb of the day on every occasion. None were the first climbing stage of the race. If Froome was at 6.39, he's right in there.

Compare that with Alberto's 20:55 climb up Verbier @ 7.16 w/k.