Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Raiko200]

Well, no. Usain Bolt is a natural talent, he's been excellent since his youth. Froome just popped up suddenly.

I don't say Bolt is clean but he can't be compared to Froome.

Perhaps he can't. It's still intriguing though. If we assume Bolt is clean then the doping products can't always overcome natural ability. His competitors were always gifted as well. They didn't pop out of nowhere. They're all talented but still can't beat Bolt.

Generally the argument goes that if you perform better then known dopers then you are doping. Maybe that argument doesn't always apply.

 

[H2OUUP2]

And it will only escalate. The biggest difference is that the number of people questioning Armstrong was relatively small early in his TdF career. Those of us who were howling our protests were drowned out by a chorus of "never tested positive," etc.

Unfortunately for Froome, the percentage of people who believe in him is significantly lower than those early days of Lance.

That will help later on when the poop hits the fan for Froome.. I just hope Froome doesn't start a charity. I just don't want to hear " but he's done so much good for (insert disease here)". God I hated that saying.

 

[weekend warrior]

Froome is peaking now, all his rivals are in decline (AC, CE, AS etc) and some not yet at their peak. Therefore domination. Some people here are kidding themselves if it is just the dope. Timing.
Beating someone like Mollema or ten dam by 5 mins is not unexpected.

 

[H2OUUP2]

.....Generally the argument goes that if you DESTROY known dopers then you are doping......

Fixed it for you.

 

[vrusimov]

I really get the feeling that a lot of the people defending Froome weren't around for, or didn't watch, the Armstrong "era", and that's why they're defending him so adamantly. Because it's really this simple as to why a lot of us are suspicious. Anyone who likes Froome, and likes the sport of cycling, can't honestly say their not also suspicious of him.

Here is a defense:

"You're comparing performances over a decade apart - big advances in positive science and training as was mentioned yesterday.

BC have been investing in positive science for 15 years, others in negative and this is the end result. It's time for them to play catch up - and it won't come quick."

So there IS some ultra secret Evolutionary Brailsford Training Techniques!

 

[bikelizard]

Perhaps he can't. It's still intriguing though. If we assume Bolt is clean then the doping products can't always overcome natural ability. His competitors were always gifted as well. They didn't pop out of nowhere. They're all talented but still can't beat Bolt.

Generally the argument goes that if you perform better then known dopers then you are doping. Maybe that argument doesn't always apply.

The difference is that Bolt was world class since he's 15 years old. Many people who are into the subject argue he is a rare talent. Of course he can still dope. Most people agree though that he would still rule if everybody would be clean.

Froome just popped up on the screen 2 years ago and changed from mediocre cyclist to uncontested TDF winner (well not yet but...) in a very short time.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Froome is peaking now, all his rivals are in decline (AC, CE, AS etc) and some not yet at their peak. Therefore domination. Some people here are kidding themselves if it is just the dope. Timing.
Beating someone like Mollema or ten dam by 5 mins is not unexpected.

yea, absolutely the entire peloton is in decline except Froome who are just about to peak.

 

[bikelizard]

yea, absolutely the entire peloton is in decline except Froome who are just about to peak.

I hope they'll modify the motorcycles just in case Froome peaks on thursday in L'Alpe d'Huez. Would be a shame if he lost the tour because he had to break during the ascent.

 

[Raiko200]

Just out of curiosity, will anybody's opinion of Froome change if he cracks on a stage or two and loses the Tour?

 

[the sceptic]

yea, absolutely the entire peloton is in decline except Froome who are just about to peak.

weak field this year, also no Contador

Next year it will be much harder

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Just out of curiosity, will anybody's opinion of Froome change if he cracks on a stage or two and loses the Tour?

WHy would that make us forget some amazing ride he has done since the tt of that vuelta?

 

[H2OUUP2]

Here is a defense:

"You're comparing performances over a decade apart - big advances in positive science and training as was mentioned yesterday.

BC have been investing in positive science for 15 years, others in negative and this is the end result. It's time for them to play catch up - and it won't come quick."

So there IS some ultra secret Evolutionary Brailsford Training Techniques!

lol - I'm waiting for the "I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles" quote. I cannot wait for something like that to be said.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

weak field this year, also no Contador

Next year it will be much harder

The majority of the top pros take part in Tour of Qinghai Lake right now.

 

[BYOP88]

Just out of curiosity, will anybody's opinion of Froome change if he cracks on a stage or two and loses the Tour?

Even 'doped' riders have cracked and lost a race before.

 

[H2OUUP2]

The majority of the top pros take part in Tour of Qinghai Lake right now.

Hahaha

 

[Granville57]

Just out of curiosity, will anybody's opinion of Froome change if he cracks on a stage or two and loses the Tour?

It could happen.

As hysterical as everyone has become, it's important to remember that there is still a helluva lot of racing left in this race. Froome could have a bad day, suffer a devastating injury, lose crucial time due to a mechanical...or be attacked by some moron in the growing mob of irrational lunatics.

Even if none of that happens, I still wouldn't bet against Contador. Alberto is capable of much. And you can spin that however you like. From any perspective, he is capable of much.

But I still hope that Froome crushes the field and wins the Tour in devastating fashion. That's the best, and most expedient, way for Wiggins to be relegated to the shadows of history.

And that's just fine by me.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Froome is peaking now, all his rivals are in decline (AC, CE, AS etc) and some not yet at their peak. Therefore domination. Some people here are kidding themselves if it is just the dope. Timing.
Beating someone like Mollema or ten dam by 5 mins is not unexpected.

Yea it's a weak field. FFS.

 

[Logic Al]

Here is a defense:

"You're comparing performances over a decade apart - big advances in positive science and training as was mentioned yesterday.

BC have been investing in positive science for 15 years, others in negative and this is the end result. It's time for them to play catch up - and it won't come quick."

So there IS some ultra secret Evolutionary Brailsford Training Techniques!

Why do people mock that, but then believe there's some secret Evolutionary Brailsford doping technique?

Surely that's just as unbelievable?

 

[jamesmasters]

A question for the Froome defenders.

I think you would all accept that the optimum body type for climbing is not the same as it is for TT'ing. Now, let's suppose that we have a rider who:

- repeatedly drops a midget Colombian super-climber on mountains, and also

- is as good in TTs as a German TT specialist with legs like tree trunks - almost beat him in this year's Tour and did beat him in last year's Tour.

I think you would have to agree that this person, if he were clean, would be uniquely talented individual, a truly exceptional talent. But let's go with it. It's possible to be exceptionally talented.

But now let's suppose that this same individual achieved nothing, NOTHING, for his entire career until 2011, at the age of 26. What exactly is the official explanation for Froome's transformation? Surely someone with such a unique, God-given talent would have shown SOME sign of it before 26??

BTW I say this as someone who previously thought the Clinic accusations were overblown and defended Wiggins (not any more), and accepts that there is a difference between believing and knowing someone is guilty. But the situation with Froome has descended into complete farce now.

 

[Logic Al]

A question for the Froome defenders.

I think you would all accept that the optimum body type for climbing is not the same as it is for TT'ing. Now, let's suppose that we have a rider who:

- repeatedly drops a midget Colombian super-climber on mountains, and also

- is as good in TTs as a German TT specialist with legs like tree trunks - almost beat him in this year's Tour and did beat him in last year's Tour.

I think you would have to agree that this person, if he were clean, would be uniquely talented individual, a truly exceptional talent. But let's go with it. It's possible to be exceptionally talented.

But now let's suppose that this same individual achieved nothing, NOTHING, for his entire career until 2011, at the age of 26. What exactly is the official explanation for Froome's transformation? Surely someone with such a unique, God-given talent would have shown SOME sign of it before 26??

BTW I say this as someone who previously thought the Clinic accusations were overblown and defended Wiggins (not any more), and accepts that there is a difference between believing and knowing someone is guilty. But the situation with Froome has descended into complete farce now.

Yep indeed

Which begs the question as to what did he start doing/taking in 2011, how's he getting away with it and why aren't other riders also doing it and getting similar levels of massive improvement?

 

[Granville57]

What exactly is the official explanation for Froome's transformation?

Hasn't the "official explanation" been offered and dissected to death already in this thread and countless others?

Non-traditional cycling upbringing.

Performance inhibited by a undiscovered parasite.

Gets treatment + proper training.

Hidden genetic talent is revealed.

The End.


(That's the official story, not mine)

 

[the sceptic]

Yep indeed

Which begs the question as to what did he start doing/taking in 2011, how's he getting away with it and why aren't other riders also doing it and getting similar levels of massive improvement?

Its not the first time someone has come out of nowhere to dominate everyone (see Riis, Perez, Aitor Gonzalez, Ricco, Wiggins etc)

Froome is an extreme case obviously and more ridiculous than those mentioned

 

[The Hitch]

The only notion more ridiculous than Froome being clean is Bolt being clean.

Yeah but you are just a jealous american who is jealous that Bolt and Blake beat all those American athletes.

Or so went the response of the entire world to Carl Lewis's comment last year that he doesn't know whether to believe what he saw.

 

[kingjr]

But now let's suppose that this same individual achieved nothing, NOTHING, for his entire career until 2011, at the age of 26. What exactly is the official explanation for Froome's transformation? Surely someone with such a unique, God-given talent would have shown SOME sign of it before 26??

Only reasonable explanation (other than doping) is his Bilharzia, simple as. If you would draw a line from his development from 2006-2008 and continue that to 2011 or 12 it's not unlikely that you end up with proper GC-material. The problem are the years 2009 and especially 2010 where he seemed to be getting weaker instead of stronger. In 2009 at least he came in 39th in the Giro that's not too bad.
At the end of the day, Bilharzia is a disease that feeds on your red blood cells, which would definitely be hindering your performance as a cyclist, i think we can agree on that much.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Has the good doctor F said anything?