Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[peloton]

Re: Re:

Sometimes being a werido is a good thing. Plenty of riders with a godly style that never won anything, much less the big one. It's obviously quite effective.

Sure, and other riders with bizarre, even ugly styles have been good climbers over the years - Fernando Escartín, Francisco Mancebo, Juan Mauricio Soler - but one of the issues with those "unorthodox" styles is that a lot of the "classical" styles are so effective because they're the most effective ways of changing up and down pace fluidly, enabling energy to not be wasted and resulting in less effort being expended. Quintana, for example, is aided by his general poker-faced expressionlessness, but when he changes up and down the tempo it looks effortless, fluid and graceful, no wasted energy. Froome even more so than those mentioned above, owing to his crazy high-cadence seated attacking and legs akimbo style (notwithstanding that none of them posted results of his level either), looks highly inefficient and wasteful of energy. Which makes his dominance even more egregious, because you then imagine, how good could he be if he wasn't wasting all this surplus power on his crawling-over-the-bike technique? And he time trials like a spider with its front legs raised, yet is almost able to match the world's best when he's on form - how good could he be if he had the almost perfect TT position of Martin? At least with Wiggins, when he was stomping the TTs, you could see why - he had a perfect flat back, minimal frontal area, absolutely no upper body movement. When Froome TTs up there with the specialists, it's hard to compute - how does he put that much power out while riding in such an efficient position?

Chris Froome's transformation back in 2011 always reminds me of another guy who was able to stomp everybody due to seemingly limitless ability to put the power down despite a wasteful, inefficient technique that many purists were mortified by. His name was Johann "Juanito" Mühlegg and his fairytale ended exactly the way you expect. I've never been able to unsee that.

Once again, an excellent post. Nail, head.

 

[No_Balls]

Re: Re:

Sometimes being a werido is a good thing. Plenty of riders with a godly style that never won anything, much less the big one. It's obviously quite effective.

Sure, and other riders with bizarre, even ugly styles have been good climbers over the years - Fernando Escartín, Francisco Mancebo, Juan Mauricio Soler - but one of the issues with those "unorthodox" styles is that a lot of the "classical" styles are so effective because they're the most effective ways of changing up and down pace fluidly, enabling energy to not be wasted and resulting in less effort being expended. Quintana, for example, is aided by his general poker-faced expressionlessness, but when he changes up and down the tempo it looks effortless, fluid and graceful, no wasted energy. Froome even more so than those mentioned above, owing to his crazy high-cadence seated attacking and legs akimbo style (notwithstanding that none of them posted results of his level either), looks highly inefficient and wasteful of energy. Which makes his dominance even more egregious, because you then imagine, how good could he be if he wasn't wasting all this surplus power on his crawling-over-the-bike technique? And he time trials like a spider with its front legs raised, yet is almost able to match the world's best when he's on form - how good could he be if he had the almost perfect TT position of Martin? At least with Wiggins, when he was stomping the TTs, you could see why - he had a perfect flat back, minimal frontal area, absolutely no upper body movement. When Froome TTs up there with the specialists, it's hard to compute - how does he put that much power out while riding in such an efficient position?

Chris Froome's transformation back in 2011 always reminds me of another guy who was able to stomp everybody due to seemingly limitless ability to put the power down despite a wasteful, inefficient technique that many purists were mortified by. His name was Johann "Juanito" Mühlegg and his fairytale ended exactly the way you expect. I've never been able to unsee that.

I applaud this post.

But you forgot Froome isnt good in time trials any more. This only works during Great Britain olympics.

 

[Supimilian]

Re:

That's always been my biggest gripe with Froome. Look at anyone else among the top riders.

When Quintana climbs it's power straight down into the pedals, upper body still and head up. No wasted energy. It looks effortless, and anyone who watches him can understand why he's fast up the hills. Contador climbs with a fair bit of body movement, but it's exciting to watch, almost playful, especially when he attacks.

Watch Nibali in a descent or on the cobbles, especially during the 5th stage of the 2014 Tour. Perfect bike handling. The bike is an extension of his body.

Time trial specialists all have a common denominator, whether they're called Cancellara, Martin, Castroviejo, Dennis, Dumoulin, Wiggins or Phinney. Absolutely flawless position on the bike. Completely aero and not a single limb catching unnecessary wind.

Somehow, however, Froome is able to climb AND time trial with the best of them when on top form, despite looking like a wet rag slumped over his bike at all times. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's impossible to root for him because his grossly unaesthetic style just makes you want to scratch your eyes out, especially when he accelerates with the Froome Sentrifuge seated attack.

The aesthetic part of sports is important to me, and I feel like it gives you a good indication on an athlete's level. You can understand why someone like Domracheva is a fast skier when watching her compete. The greats in football like Maradona, Messi, Best, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Cruyff all have a grace about them on the ball. Their body shape is just right and their movements are fluid. You can see why they're able to pull off difficult skills on a regular basis. Watching Froome pound seven shades of poop out of climbers and time triallers alike is like Lee Cattermole suddenly becoming a world class attacker and Ballon d'Or candidate, while playing with the style of a street thug.

It should be noted that Cadel Evans never looked like a bunch of roses riding his bike, but when he was wrestling his bike up a climb he was suffering like a dog barely trying to hang on to the riders attacking like they could go all day. No matter how dirty or clean Evans was, that type of riding will always strike me as more believable than Froome's time warp pedal spins off the front of a bunch that's already on the limit of what they can handle.

But that's just one of many things that irk me with The Dawg. Nothing adds up with him. The only explanation is that he's one of the best responders to dope the world has ever seen and/or that he's on a cocktail of many different enhancers to get the best every PED has to offer, from the blood boosting of bags and EPO to the weight loss of AICAR and gw1516. When you look at the fact that they hired Leinders and that they still employ the services of Knaven and Arvesen (come on... road captain for Bjarne Riis' team for the better part of a decade without being in on the dirty little secrets? Give me a break.) there's little doubt that the ZTP is little more than a smokescreen to fend off the most gullible of the sport's followers.

This is what I was talking about
Typical blowhard monologue with no substance and lots of "feel".
You obviously have zero knowledge about this. Evans style was way worse from an efficiency point of view.
If you want to talk about styles that are exclusively for the topped up gentleman, Pantani is the most ridiculous bar none. It makes little visual sense for somebody that doesn't ride, but that style has more waste than Froomes. Evans as well. What is ridiculous about Froome is the power and especially the power to weight. The efficiency of the style is fine, some of you are just blind haters that will cling to anything. Total red herring.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

That's always been my biggest gripe with Froome. Look at anyone else among the top riders.

When Quintana climbs it's power straight down into the pedals, upper body still and head up. No wasted energy. It looks effortless, and anyone who watches him can understand why he's fast up the hills. Contador climbs with a fair bit of body movement, but it's exciting to watch, almost playful, especially when he attacks.

Watch Nibali in a descent or on the cobbles, especially during the 5th stage of the 2014 Tour. Perfect bike handling. The bike is an extension of his body.

Time trial specialists all have a common denominator, whether they're called Cancellara, Martin, Castroviejo, Dennis, Dumoulin, Wiggins or Phinney. Absolutely flawless position on the bike. Completely aero and not a single limb catching unnecessary wind.

Somehow, however, Froome is able to climb AND time trial with the best of them when on top form, despite looking like a wet rag slumped over his bike at all times. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's impossible to root for him because his grossly unaesthetic style just makes you want to scratch your eyes out, especially when he accelerates with the Froome Sentrifuge seated attack.

The aesthetic part of sports is important to me, and I feel like it gives you a good indication on an athlete's level. You can understand why someone like Domracheva is a fast skier when watching her compete. The greats in football like Maradona, Messi, Best, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Cruyff all have a grace about them on the ball. Their body shape is just right and their movements are fluid. You can see why they're able to pull off difficult skills on a regular basis. Watching Froome pound seven shades of poop out of climbers and time triallers alike is like Lee Cattermole suddenly becoming a world class attacker and Ballon d'Or candidate, while playing with the style of a street thug.

It should be noted that Cadel Evans never looked like a bunch of roses riding his bike, but when he was wrestling his bike up a climb he was suffering like a dog barely trying to hang on to the riders attacking like they could go all day. No matter how dirty or clean Evans was, that type of riding will always strike me as more believable than Froome's time warp pedal spins off the front of a bunch that's already on the limit of what they can handle.

But that's just one of many things that irk me with The Dawg. Nothing adds up with him. The only explanation is that he's one of the best responders to dope the world has ever seen and/or that he's on a cocktail of many different enhancers to get the best every PED has to offer, from the blood boosting of bags and EPO to the weight loss of AICAR and gw1516. When you look at the fact that they hired Leinders and that they still employ the services of Knaven and Arvesen (come on... road captain for Bjarne Riis' team for the better part of a decade without being in on the dirty little secrets? Give me a break.) there's little doubt that the ZTP is little more than a smokescreen to fend off the most gullible of the sport's followers.

This is what I was talking about
Typical blowhard monologue with no substance and lots of "feel".
You obviously have zero knowledge about this. Evans style was way worse from an efficiency point of view.
If you want to talk about styles that are exclusively for the topped up gentleman, Pantani is the most ridiculous bar none. It makes little visual sense for somebody that doesn't ride, but that style has more waste than Froomes. Evans as well. What is ridiculous about Froome is the power and especially the power to weight. The efficiency of the style is fine, some of you are just blind haters that will cling to anything. Total red herring.

I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I don't think people are saying that the inefficient style is a pointer that says Froome dopes. It's that people can't ignore it. You can't kid yourself. I agree with you on Pantani's technique being also inefficient, it was crazy when we look back on it. Evans, I think is ok in the saddle, when he gets out of it it's like he's trying to bash the ground with the drops. What's your take on Horner climbing out of the saddle permanently on one leg to win the Vuelta?

You point out that what's ridiculous about Froome is the power, but if he was putting that power out in a more Classical technique, people would still find it ridiculous, but it would be less immediately obvious how ridiculous it is than in the nodding-dog-on-top-of-an-eggbeater technique he currently employs, which means his power just looks wrong the second you see it. It would take until he hit hilarious-speed to really show you how ridiculous his power is (like Riccò, for example), whereas at the moment the second he hits the accelerator you reach for the remote.

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

That's always been my biggest gripe with Froome. Look at anyone else among the top riders.

When Quintana climbs it's power straight down into the pedals, upper body still and head up. No wasted energy. It looks effortless, and anyone who watches him can understand why he's fast up the hills. Contador climbs with a fair bit of body movement, but it's exciting to watch, almost playful, especially when he attacks.

Watch Nibali in a descent or on the cobbles, especially during the 5th stage of the 2014 Tour. Perfect bike handling. The bike is an extension of his body.

Time trial specialists all have a common denominator, whether they're called Cancellara, Martin, Castroviejo, Dennis, Dumoulin, Wiggins or Phinney. Absolutely flawless position on the bike. Completely aero and not a single limb catching unnecessary wind.

Somehow, however, Froome is able to climb AND time trial with the best of them when on top form, despite looking like a wet rag slumped over his bike at all times. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it's impossible to root for him because his grossly unaesthetic style just makes you want to scratch your eyes out, especially when he accelerates with the Froome Sentrifuge seated attack.

The aesthetic part of sports is important to me, and I feel like it gives you a good indication on an athlete's level. You can understand why someone like Domracheva is a fast skier when watching her compete. The greats in football like Maradona, Messi, Best, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Cruyff all have a grace about them on the ball. Their body shape is just right and their movements are fluid. You can see why they're able to pull off difficult skills on a regular basis. Watching Froome pound seven shades of poop out of climbers and time triallers alike is like Lee Cattermole suddenly becoming a world class attacker and Ballon d'Or candidate, while playing with the style of a street thug.

It should be noted that Cadel Evans never looked like a bunch of roses riding his bike, but when he was wrestling his bike up a climb he was suffering like a dog barely trying to hang on to the riders attacking like they could go all day. No matter how dirty or clean Evans was, that type of riding will always strike me as more believable than Froome's time warp pedal spins off the front of a bunch that's already on the limit of what they can handle.

But that's just one of many things that irk me with The Dawg. Nothing adds up with him. The only explanation is that he's one of the best responders to dope the world has ever seen and/or that he's on a cocktail of many different enhancers to get the best every PED has to offer, from the blood boosting of bags and EPO to the weight loss of AICAR and gw1516. When you look at the fact that they hired Leinders and that they still employ the services of Knaven and Arvesen (come on... road captain for Bjarne Riis' team for the better part of a decade without being in on the dirty little secrets? Give me a break.) there's little doubt that the ZTP is little more than a smokescreen to fend off the most gullible of the sport's followers.

This is what I was talking about
Typical blowhard monologue with no substance and lots of "feel".
You obviously have zero knowledge about this. Evans style was way worse from an efficiency point of view.
If you want to talk about styles that are exclusively for the topped up gentleman, Pantani is the most ridiculous bar none. It makes little visual sense for somebody that doesn't ride, but that style has more waste than Froomes. Evans as well. What is ridiculous about Froome is the power and especially the power to weight. The efficiency of the style is fine, some of you are just blind haters that will cling to anything. Total red herring.

I don't want to put words in other people's mouths, but I don't think people are saying that the inefficient style is a pointer that says Froome dopes. It's that people can't ignore it. You can't kid yourself. I agree with you on Pantani's technique being also inefficient, it was crazy when we look back on it. Evans, I think is ok in the saddle, when he gets out of it it's like he's trying to bash the ground with the drops. What's your take on Horner climbing out of the saddle permanently on one leg to win the Vuelta?

You point out that what's ridiculous about Froome is the power, but if he was putting that power out in a more Classical technique, people would still find it ridiculous, but it would be less immediately obvious how ridiculous it is than in the nodding-dog-on-top-of-an-eggbeater technique he currently employs, which means his power just looks wrong the second you see it. It would take until he hit hilarious-speed to really show you how ridiculous his power is (like Riccò, for example), whereas at the moment the second he hits the accelerator you reach for the remote.

Horner style is full potato. But still not as bad as Pantani power wise.
My point is the technique of Froome is not even a secondary issue or an indicator as with some of the guys mentioned. It is not really bad for anything except the peace of mind of any observer with some concept of aesthetics. The elbows, the head tilt, the stemgazing. It's literally nothing power wise, going uphill especially. Even Contador has some more suspect habits, jerky cadence, much worse than Froome and... sideways bending of his back(NOT good). And his TT position is objectively worse. Nibali is a technical god though. Quintana is also flawless uphill. Ricco was also not wasting all that much uphill in my view.

 

[Saint Unix]

Libertine Seguros has got it right. In a sport where most of (if not all) the top guys dope, it's hard to condemn Froome more than other riders for doping alone. What Froome has is a team that will spit lies and hypocrisy at every journalist that shoves a microphone under their noses, a riding style that makes viewers nauseous, the whole transformation of 2011 that's just an insult to any spectator's intelligence and tactics that are the opposite of viewer-friendly. Watching the Sky Train Postal their way up climbs kills any chance other riders have of giving the spectators a good race. I want to see riders breaking away from the bunch on the climbs, regardless of whether it's a GC contender or not. When Sky are at the front on the flats and in the hills and other riders are struggling to even hang onto the back of them like they did in 2012 and 2013 it just becomes a joke.

Being the least likeable in a sport full of dopers and former dopers takes talent. Too bad he doesn't have half as much natural talent on a bike. I'll gladly admit that I'd rather see Froome popped that anyone else and that I am biased against him and his team. I find no joy as a cycling fan in watching his latest mockery of the sport. It's just too obvious what's going on.

 

[Supimilian]

Re:

Libertine Seguros has got it right. In a sport where most of (if not all) the top guys dope, it's hard to condemn Froome more than other riders for doping alone. What Froome has is a team that will spit lies and hypocrisy at every journalist that shoves a microphone under their noses, a riding style that makes viewers nauseous, the whole transformation of 2011 that's just an insult to any spectator's intelligence and tactics that are the opposite of viewer-friendly. Watching the Sky Train Postal their way up climbs kills any chance other riders have of giving the spectators a good race. I want to see riders breaking away from the bunch on the climbs, regardless of whether it's a GC contender or not. When Sky are at the front on the flats and in the hills and other riders are struggling to even hang onto the back of them like they did in 2012 and 2013 it just becomes a joke.

Being the least likeable in a sport full of dopers and former dopers takes talent. Too bad he doesn't have half as much natural talent on a bike.

They are successful dopers when all their competition dopes and should fess up or gtfo then (like that can coexist lol)? And you hate them and they are dookie heads.
Again, just don't post if you just want to make noise. This thread is for doping related talk, not haters anonymous.
Poster like you almost makes some of us actually root for the guy

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

GPL

Great Post Libertine

Won't argue that he is generally suspect as #%€, but that position/climbing style argument is really really reaching. His TT position is actually very good. I would even argue it's better than Armstrongs, and ceirtainly better than Contadors. He gets low and narrow. Legs might be all over the place, but that is more a comfort issue as long as the power transfer is even. Cancellara also does this btw. People who say it's bad have little concept of aerodynamics.
Climbing style is also mostly about comfort, again, as long as the stroke is good at the foot. The Muhlegg comparison is not a good one, as CC skiing is has many more fine points technically (and even a guy like Muhlegg is not as bad as he is made out to be in this regard, but that's a whole other topic).

"He looks dumb lol" does not really do this forum justice. There is not much about the style that suggests exceptional leaks in power vs the opposition. Stupid as it might look.

Bad example using Armstrong to compare. Lance looked like *** on TT bike. He won because he was doped up more than anyone and just overpowered them.

 

[Supimilian]

Re: Re:

GPL

Great Post Libertine

Won't argue that he is generally suspect as #%€, but that position/climbing style argument is really really reaching. His TT position is actually very good. I would even argue it's better than Armstrongs, and ceirtainly better than Contadors. He gets low and narrow. Legs might be all over the place, but that is more a comfort issue as long as the power transfer is even. Cancellara also does this btw. People who say it's bad have little concept of aerodynamics.
Climbing style is also mostly about comfort, again, as long as the stroke is good at the foot. The Muhlegg comparison is not a good one, as CC skiing is has many more fine points technically (and even a guy like Muhlegg is not as bad as he is made out to be in this regard, but that's a whole other topic).

"He looks dumb lol" does not really do this forum justice. There is not much about the style that suggests exceptional leaks in power vs the opposition. Stupid as it might look.

Bad example using Armstrong to compare. Lance looked like *** on TT bike. He won because he was doped up more than anyone and just overpowered them.

Am aware. Not much talk about it back then. He looked very correct and dynamic is a superficial sense. You have to know what to look for. Froome is somewhat the opposite.

 

[hrotha]

For all your complaints about other people going exclusively by "feels" when they judge Froome's position on the bike, you're doing exactly the same, the only difference being you're going against the consensus without proper substantiation.

 

[Supimilian]

Re:

For all your complaints about other people going exclusively by "feels" when they judge Froome's position on the bike, you're doing exactly the same, the only difference being you're going against the consensus without proper substantiation.

Sounds more like the substantiation is voided because of lack of adherence to the consensus of the incredibly enlightened masses.
Go look at some tape. It's there.

And again, as a long time reader, it's mostly about the credibility of this fine establishment, but it's understandable that you would want as big a pool as possible for the next draft

 

[AICA ribonucleotide]

Re:

Froome is a sick joke played on cycling fans. People who have put up with so much doping over the years, then this walking medical experiment shows up and does one thing more unbelievable after the next.

It's simply not fair that this guy who if not for Lars Petter Nordhaug getting sick probably wouldn't even be in procycling anymore is now starting to look like the next Merckx.

And don't even get me started on the british media.

I dont even think most of the british media believe in it.
Because if the Froome story was true it's one of the biggest miracles in the history of sport.
Why isn't Froome being feted as the greatest cyclist of all time?

 

[Supimilian]

https://youtu.be/GLQ05Zwm_Eg?t=12m41s

Noticeably smoother stroke even at significantly higher cadence than AC doing his side drop thing, and jerking the pedals at a lower cadence. Froomes power transfer is almost flawless here. Even when standing. Fact.

Plebs can't get over the upper body movement, and the meme lives on.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Maybe some people hate Froome because they don't like his riding style.

The real overbearing reason however is not his riding style or career progression. It is their need to constantly praise the cleanliness of their own wins.

Without spending too many words explaining it, I'll give one example, the same one I gave a week ago. There is a book out called "Mastermind: How Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel".

That is just one example of the extremely egotistical insulting and self praising God syndrome Sky promote at every turn that even Astana and Saxo bank do not.

That's all you need to know.

Next post you make like explaining why you think some people hate Froome more, I hope to see you mention "Mastermind: how Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel" in it

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Maybe some people hate Froome because they don't like his riding style.

The real overbearing reason however is not his riding style or career progression. It is their need to constantly praise the cleanliness of their own wins.

Without spending too many words explaining it, I'll give one example, the same one I gave a week ago. There is a book out called "Mastermind: How Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel".

That is just one example of the extremely egotistical insulting and self praising God syndrome Sky promote at every turn that even Astana and Saxo bank do not.

That's all you need to know.

Next post you make like explaining why you think some people hate Froome more, I hope to see you mention "Mastermind: how Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel" in it

Was that some sort of authorized biography? Big freakin' lel.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Contador has a long thread in here, but 99% of Contador's fans reckon he dopes. Same for Nibali. The Skyfans actually believe the BS from Sky that they are clean. The Sky threads are full of examples of Sky's lies, but they ignore that. Their contribution to Sky threads keeps the thread ticking over. That most Sky fans are newcomers to the sport and dont appear to have done any research into the sport but take the word of Sky as truth is another reason for what appears as vitriol towards Froome.

TBF plenty of Sky fans accept they dope. Nowadays its just del and the usual martin parker sockpuppets that post stuff like "Sky have never failed a test therefore they must be clean".

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Maybe some people hate Froome because they don't like his riding style.

The real overbearing reason however is not his riding style or career progression. It is their need to constantly praise the cleanliness of their own wins.

Without spending too many words explaining it, I'll give one example, the same one I gave a week ago. There is a book out called "Mastermind: How Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel".

That is just one example of the extremely egotistical insulting and self praising God syndrome Sky promote at every turn that even Astana and Saxo bank do not.

That's all you need to know.

Next post you make like explaining why you think some people hate Froome more, I hope to see you mention "Mastermind: how Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel" in it

Was that some sort of authorized biography? Big freakin' lel.

Nah. Its a series of short stories. In each one Superman, err Brailsford, is faced with a problem. He deals with it using his special power which is called genius (super effective). Then the book moves to the next story.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Yeah that's one of the key reasons I cannot help but continue to point at Froome. Even if I wanted to suspend disbelief, even if I wanted to stick my head into the sand and pretend that cycling is clean, Froome's participation in races makes it impossible. His absurd power advantage while having none of the characteristics that make his dominance even remotely plausible, is grating. It's almost a mockery.

cycling is not clean, why do you have or would try to pretend it is?

Well most people do so because it makes them feel better at night.

Of course me you and sam are from a different cloth and won't close the blinds to pretend the train is moving, but Sam was speaking hypothetically anyway.

Though I agree with the point that if Froome wasn't there cycling would still be just as ridiculous, seeing as how Astana Nibali won the last TDF, Contador currently owns 2 gts and Valverde is the world number 1.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

We know the sport is corrupt.

I'm not Tommy79 but I need to replay to you.

You said it your self, the sport is corrupted. So why is all hate and blame put on Froome?
It would be unfair if every single rider except Froome was clean, but that is probably not the case. If he is cheating, than so is the most of the peloton. So why does it matter if Froome is clean or not? He is the best! The best among other dopers or the best among other clean riders, the fact is that he is the best.

from what I gathered, the problem is not if Froome dopes, but it´s Brailsford´s narrative, Walsh fanboyism, UK fans blindness, Froome sudden 2011 explosion, Sky marginal gains stories

that makes him unbearable to many, while Nibali or Contador who dope like him, but had a more "normal" career progression and are not backed by cycling fans who discovered the wheel in 2012, are more accepted, and cheered.
that´s what sometimes gets me lost, usually on twitter, people cheer for some riders but are anti-doping, and the only thing they say is "oh no fycking Froome again"..

Contador has a long thread in here, but 99% of Contador's fans reckon he dopes. Same for Nibali. The Skyfans actually believe the BS from Sky that they are clean. The Sky threads are full of examples of Sky's lies, but they ignore that. Their contribution to Sky threads keeps the thread ticking over. That most Sky fans are newcomers to the sport and dont appear to have done any research into the sport but take the word of Sky as truth is another reason for what appears as vitriol towards Froome.

I think you are generalizing too much. Mostly British people believe Sky is clean. And as you said this is an English speaking forum, so most "fans" of Sky who's comments you read here are British. I, myself, am relatively new to this sport, but I believe that Sky is not clean.

A plurality of fans on here who don't believe Sky are also British.

 

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

Though I agree with the point that if Froome wasn't there cycling would still be just as ridiculous, seeing as how Astana Nibali won the last TDF, Contador currently owns 2 gts and Valverde is the world number 1.

Hey just b/c Froome is doping scum, don't tar Valverde with the same brush!

18.- Valv(piti) hasn't won a single GT since coming back from his doping ban...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

Though I agree with the point that if Froome wasn't there cycling would still be just as ridiculous, seeing as how Astana Nibali won the last TDF, Contador currently owns 2 gts and Valverde is the world number 1.

Hey just b/c Froome is doping scum, don't tar Valverde with the same brush!

18.- Valv(piti) hasn't won a single GT since coming back from his doping ban...

Who needs GT wins when you have a post-ban CQ ranking points uptick like this

 

[Archibald]

Re: Re:

Though I agree with the point that if Froome wasn't there cycling would still be just as ridiculous, seeing as how Astana Nibali won the last TDF, Contador currently owns 2 gts and Valverde is the world number 1.

Hey just b/c Froome is doping scum, don't tar Valverde with the same brush!

18.- Valv(piti) hasn't won a single GT since coming back from his doping ban...

still finished 2nd in his first Vuelta back from that ban with 2 stage wins to boot...
since 2012;
3 GT podiums and a 4th
13 podiums in classics including 4 wins
3 WC podiums
all cleans, eh?

 

[pastronef]

bravo guys, last 2 pages are what a normal discussion about Froome and doping should be, (instead of the usual Hendy's push) I liked some of Supimilian's posts

@theHitch thanks, I will add to the reasons of Froome bashing "Mastermind: How Dave Brailsford reinvented the wheel" that's funny for sure and so over the top with his "genius"

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Even Contador has some more suspect habits, jerky cadence, much worse than Froome and... sideways bending of his back(NOT good). And his TT position is objectively worse.

Jerky cadence? Only when he's following on a massive gear. When he attacks his pedaling style is very fluid. I'd rather see a somewhat jerky cadence while pushing a massive gear than washing machine 150RPM spins. Bending of the back? I haven't a clue what you're talking about but it surely cannot be objectively worse than the shopping cart style combined with constant looking down and then twisting the neck in a seemingly very uncomfortable way to look ahead. TT position? Again not a clue what you're talking about, his TT position is very good.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Great posts by Libertine and Saint Unix further upthread, by the way