Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Granville57]

‏@chrisfroome
And people ask me why I ride with my head down?!
https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/510858653893947392/photo/1

Props to Froomedawg for at least being able to joke about it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Heck of a lot of assumptions made there.

Heck of a lot of denial shown there.

 

[D-Queued]

Maybe you missed the multiple attacks, seated and standing trying to get rid of Contador... Back to the wind tunnel to perfect the seated attack. Next time it'll be 180rpm on 80% climb

That would be exciting.

But, no, I didn't miss the multiple attacks - seated and standing.

Perhaps you forgot what Lance was like.

Here is an example from what may have been the most heavily doped field ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEqQW1-casM

He must have been doing 120+ RPM at points and was 10%+ faster than Ullrich. Yes, 10%+.

Lance schooled them all. If you dope, use high cadence.

Dave.

 

[del1962]

Heck of a lot of denial shown there.

No idea what you are on about other than you are not really addressing the point that you have made a lot of assumptions, so nice deflection mate

 

[laurel1969]

Heck of a lot of denial shown there.

No denial from me.

But del has a point about your post. How about this for an assumption:
We can never know if Contador possesses superior physiological skills because he started doping as a junior. Froome started doping in 2011, aged 26.

Matthew 7:3-5

*And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Why favour one doper over another? It's hypocritical.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No denial from me.

But del has a point about your post. How about this for an assumption:
We can never know if Contador possesses superior physiological skills because he started doping as a junior. Froome started doping in 2011, aged 26.

Matthew 7:3-5

*And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Why favour one doper over another? It's hypocritical.

1. Clentadope has superior physiological attributes. I say so because I say so based on their early performances. It's my standard to make, and that is how I decided. If I wanted to consult you about it before making the statement, then I would have PM"d you. You can feel safe that IDGAF what you think about the issue in the absence of such contact.

2. You know Froome only started doping when he was 26 how?...Oh yea, you made an a assumption...<ellipsis serve the same purpose as rolleyes, but seem more "adult" to me.

3. I don't really favor Clentadope more than Froome as much as I just like watching Froome get beat at his own game. It is even sweeter because one of those riders likes to throw sh!t at other riders about doping (while being a doper himself), while the other has always doped and shown respect for his competitors. Clentadope attacked Froome yesterday when he didn't have to, I believe in part because Froome has thrown sh!t at Clentadope, and shown little respect to a competitor. When you're a doper, and you vigorously try to pretend you're not, and one of your methods is to discuss the doping of others (in the press), then f*&k you. Froome is a smarmy little d0uchebag who has the unfortunate ability to ride quickly in the most aesthetically displeasing way one could ride. I not only don't like his doping and personality, I also despise watching washing machine legs accompanied by stem gazing. It's just horrible to watch. What is fun to watch is Clentadope dropping him.

 

[laurel1969]

If YDGAF then forums probably aren't for you. Couldn't be bothered to read the rest of your ill-constructed and poorly punctuated rant.

Sorry.

 

[Scott SoCal]

1. Clentadope has superior physiological attributes. I say so because I say so based on their early performances. It's my standard to make, and that is how I decided. If I wanted to consult you about it before making the statement, then I would have PM"d you. You can feel safe that IDGAF what you think about the issue in the absence of such contact.

2. You know Froome only started doping when he was 26 how?...Oh yea, you made an a assumption...<ellipsis serve the same purpose as rolleyes, but seem more "adult" to me.

3. I don't really favor Clentadope more than Froome as much as I just like watching Froome get beat at his own game. It is even sweeter because one of those riders likes to throw sh!t at other riders about doping (while being a doper himself), while the other has always doped and shown respect for his competitors. Clentadope attacked Froome yesterday when he didn't have to, I believe in part because Froome has thrown sh!t at Clentadope, and shown little respect to a competitor. When you're a doper, and you vigorously try to pretend you're not, and one of your methods is to discuss the doping of others (in the press), then f*&k you. Froome is a smarmy little d0uchebag who has the unfortunate ability to ride quickly in the most aesthetically displeasing way one could ride. I not only don't like his doping and personality, I also despise watching washing machine legs accompanied by stem gazing. It's just horrible to watch. What is fun to watch is Clentadope dropping him.

I only wish you'd stop holding back and say what you really feel regarding Froome.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If YDGAF then forums probably aren't for you. Couldn't be bothered to read the rest of your ill-constructed and poorly punctuated rant.

Sorry.

Oh the irony. (And if you can't immediately see it, then maybe critique of punctuation isn't something in which you should engage.)

Oh, and you read it. Pretending you didn't is actually sad. Maybe forums aren't for you?

 

[laurel1969]

Oh, the irony.

FTFY

Oh, and you read it. Pretending you didn't is actually sad. Maybe forums aren't for you.

No really, I didn't, and I'm reasonably confident I didn't miss much worthwhile. Life's too sho.....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

FTFY



No really, I didn't, and I'm reasonably confident I didn't miss much worthwhile. Life's too sho.....

FTFY



No really, I didn't, and I'm reasonably confident I didn't miss much worthwhile. Life's too sho...

<- Ellipsis are only 3 periods. FTFY...

And you can stomp and pretend that you didn't read it, but we all know you did. You just cannot counter it, so you went to the last refuge of all intertubes losers, punctuation or grammar attacks.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Props to Froomedawg for at least being able to joke about it.

Major respect to Froome for being able to joke about that.

 

[the sceptic]

someone threw the Dawg a bone?

 

[zastomito]

We can never know if Contador possesses superior physiological skills because he started doping as a junior. Froome started doping in 2011, aged 26.

As far as I know doping doesn't alter your genetic code. Besides, if Contador was doping as a junior he wasn't alone. The whole field was doping.
By your logic Froome is really bad physical specimen based on his pre-doping results.

 

[del1962]

<- Ellipsis are only 3 periods. FTFY...

And you can stomp and pretend that you didn't read it, but we all know you did. You just cannot counter it, so you went to the last refuge of all intertubes losers, punctuation or grammar attacks.

Why would anyone be interested in countering a silly rant?

 

[frenchfry]

1. Clentadope has superior physiological attributes. I say so because I say so based on their early performances. It's my standard to make, and that is how I decided. If I wanted to consult you about it before making the statement, then I would have PM"d you. You can feel safe that IDGAF what you think about the issue in the absence of such contact.

2. You know Froome only started doping when he was 26 how?...Oh yea, you made an a assumption...<ellipsis serve the same purpose as rolleyes, but seem more "adult" to me.

3. I don't really favor Clentadope more than Froome as much as I just like watching Froome get beat at his own game. It is even sweeter because one of those riders likes to throw sh!t at other riders about doping (while being a doper himself), while the other has always doped and shown respect for his competitors. Clentadope attacked Froome yesterday when he didn't have to, I believe in part because Froome has thrown sh!t at Clentadope, and shown little respect to a competitor. When you're a doper, and you vigorously try to pretend you're not, and one of your methods is to discuss the doping of others (in the press), then f*&k you. Froome is a smarmy little d0uchebag who has the unfortunate ability to ride quickly in the most aesthetically displeasing way one could ride. I not only don't like his doping and personality, I also despise watching washing machine legs accompanied by stem gazing. It's just horrible to watch. What is fun to watch is Clentadope dropping him.

Well put councillor, though I tend to think of an egg beater rather than a washing machine when I see the dawg flailing away.

 

[SeriousSam]

We can never know if Contador possesses superior physiological skills because he started doping as a junior. Froome started doping in 2011, aged 26.

Just because he was aweful doesn't mean he didn't dope. There are riders in the peloton doing EPO who are even worse than Barloworld Froome. My guess is Froome started blood doping in 2011 but no way was he clean before that.

 

[the sceptic]

Just because he was aweful doesn't mean he didn't dope. There are riders in the peloton doing EPO who are even worse than Barloworld Froome. My guess is Froome started blood doping in 2011 but no way was he clean before that.

wasnt there some talk in mein climb about him getting lots of injection at barloworld?

 

[mrhender]

wasnt there some talk in mein climb about him getting lots of injection at barloworld?

Maybe in the book, but certainly here:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html

PK: When was the first time you had an injection as a bike rider?

CF: It would have been on Barloworld.

PK: Because for me, syringes and sport was not a natural association?

CF: No, and not one I had before either.

PK: When was the first time?

CF: I don’t necessarily remember the first time; I just remember it was a few times when I was at Barloworld. It would have been one of the earlier Spanish races that I did. It was definitely in a stage race, about half-way through or two-thirds of the way through. The doctor came around to everyone’s room and said, ‘Okay guys, you’ve had three hard days, here are some amino acids to help you recover.’ At first I thought, ‘This is a bit weird’ but he explained there were no problems with it and that it was completely allowed

Completely allowed... So case closed

 

[bigcog]

As far as I know doping doesn't alter your genetic code. Besides, if Contador was doping as a junior he wasn't alone. The whole field was doping.

It could be possible in theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why would anyone be interested in countering a silly rant?

Why would anyone have the silly idea that Froomedog is clean?

 

[laurel1969]

Why would anyone have the silly idea that Froomedog is clean?

If you stop ranting for a moment and open your ears you might notice that nobody is.

 

[zastomito]

It could be possible in theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Yeah, but I don't think that products used for doping could trigger the changes.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And you can stomp and pretend that you didn't read it, but we all know you did. You just cannot counter it, so you went to the last refuge of all intertubes losers, punctuation or grammar attacks.

Hmmmmmm........

I'm not gonna read though this troll bullsh!t to find out, but I do hope that someone has informed the OP what of "inherent" means...

And no, I didn't really read through it before posting a couple of days ago...I just free-formed it. Jazz style.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you stop ranting for a moment and open your ears you might notice that nobody is.

If you'd open your eyes, you'd see that several are. But you have some other agenda, and quite frankly, I don't really care what it is. What I will say is that I don't think del needs you to carry his water, so why don't you do this: Write when written to, but otherwise f*&k off.