Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

I hope Quintana puts 1:30 into Froome in the Alps, then we can see how Moviestar explains such unbelievable performance to the Clinic lol!

movistar: "Quintana is a natural talent, altitude native, naturaly high hematocrit, he also had a tailwind and Vayer is wrong with his estimates"

the clinic: "haha, what a bunch of crap, he is obviously doping"

no one: "but he is british so he must be clean"

Come on you know that is absolute bollocks. It will be Quintana born and lives at altitude and has a naturally high haemocrit level ...

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

 

[gazr99]

Why is it seems those who feel as strong that Froome isn't doping as the ones who think he is, seem to get attacked a bit more personally?

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

You're all arguing that proof of suspicion is rider transformation is to fast, yet nobody can say what is slow enough transformation. Either he has the ability to compete with the other Top 30 on PEDs or he doesn't and 3 years to get there seems believable to me regardless of comparing palamares to any of those Top 30 PEDs contenders.

By the looks of it according to the clinic if you're not seen a GT contender by the time you're 20, you shouldn't win one

Nope, that's really not the point
If you take someone like Sastre, doped or not, the guy won a single GT when all the stars aligned in his favor
Chris Froome has won a Tour in a dominant fashion, could've done it in 2012, looks like he'll do it again this year
Meanwhile he also wins Dauphines, Romandies, and other races
He also posts multiple very impressive climbing times
The assumption at work here is that, if a rider is capable of dominating three Tours and a plethora of other races, clean, his talent should've been visible at a younger age
If you take the current top 10 of the Tour, ALL those riders have been hailed as future GT contenders at a very young age - apart from Froome (and probably Thomas)
On the other hand, nobody said anything about Froome contending GT's, let alone dominate multiple Tours, before he suddenly went head to head with Cobo in the Vuelta
That is the point
Froome's performances imply talent showing at a young age
Feel free to provide counterarguments i.e., any link to someone predicting Froome's greatness before the 2011 Vuelta, or an example of a clean rider performing at a similar high level without showing much talent at a young age

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

 

[Franklin]

Re:

Why is it seems those who feel as strong that Froome isn't doping as the ones who think he is, seem to get attacked a bit more personally?

Quite simple gazr99

Those who think Froome is doping rely on facts.

Think of it like this:

You are in a bicycle shop. Someone walks into your shop and starts yelling to all your customers that they should use water to grease their bearings. When you explain that the mechanical characteristics of water are not suited as grease they start to explain that science is not exact, water is fine, you are not an expert.

You would be pissed.

Thats what is happening here. The Froome doubters have numerous facts that point towards doping, supported by science. Sky releases data that's missleading (at best), as simple math shows it can't be right. Yet there are a few posters who are frothing at the mouth and screaming that the science is wrong, Sky's numbers must be right and that we are just evil people.

It's hard to argue with Froome fans when they dismiss facts and reject simple math and science. It''s facts versus fanatical belief.

As is shown by for example Sam and the Spud who reject the science and math.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

You're all arguing that proof of suspicion is rider transformation is to fast, yet nobody can say what is slow enough transformation. Either he has the ability to compete with the other Top 30 on PEDs or he doesn't and 3 years to get there seems believable to me regardless of comparing palamares to any of those Top 30 PEDs contenders.

By the looks of it according to the clinic if you're not seen a GT contender by the time you're 20, you shouldn't win one

Nope, that's really not the point
If you take someone like Sastre, doped or not, the guy won a single GT when all the stars aligned in his favor
Chris Froome has won a Tour in a dominant fashion, could've done it in 2012, looks like he'll do it again this year
Meanwhile he also wins Dauphines, Romandies, and other races
He also posts multiple very impressive climbing times
The assumption at work here is that, if a rider is capable of dominating three Tours and a plethora of other races, clean, his talent should've been visible at a younger age
If you take the current top 10 of the Tour, ALL those riders have been hailed as future GT contenders at a very young age - apart from Froome (and probably Thomas)
On the other hand, nobody said anything about Froome contending GT's, let alone dominate multiple Tours, before he suddenly went head to head with Cobo in the Vuelta
That is the point
Froome's performances imply talent showing at a young age
Feel free to provide counterarguments i.e., any link to someone predicting Froome's greatness before the 2011 Vuelta, or an example of a clean rider performing at a similar high level without showing much talent at a young age

Talent is only successful if it is nurtured and has elite coaching from an early age.

Froome showed talent by coming 17th at the Commonwealths with rubbish equipment and little coaching, that is talent. I'm not sure how much coaching and nurturing Barloworld did but it is reasonably safe to say, Froome didn't have any elite coaching or nurturing until the end of 2009 when he was 24. Add in the bacterial infection they didn't discover until 2011, it is feasible what he has accomplished.

Or have you never in any sport heard of the term late bloomer?

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

You're all arguing that proof of suspicion is rider transformation is to fast, yet nobody can say what is slow enough transformation. Either he has the ability to compete with the other Top 30 on PEDs or he doesn't and 3 years to get there seems believable to me regardless of comparing palamares to any of those Top 30 PEDs contenders.

By the looks of it according to the clinic if you're not seen a GT contender by the time you're 20, you shouldn't win one

Nope, that's really not the point
If you take someone like Sastre, doped or not, the guy won a single GT when all the stars aligned in his favor
Chris Froome has won a Tour in a dominant fashion, could've done it in 2012, looks like he'll do it again this year
Meanwhile he also wins Dauphines, Romandies, and other races
He also posts multiple very impressive climbing times
The assumption at work here is that, if a rider is capable of dominating three Tours and a plethora of other races, clean, his talent should've been visible at a younger age
If you take the current top 10 of the Tour, ALL those riders have been hailed as future GT contenders at a very young age - apart from Froome (and probably Thomas)
On the other hand, nobody said anything about Froome contending GT's, let alone dominate multiple Tours, before he suddenly went head to head with Cobo in the Vuelta
That is the point
Froome's performances imply talent showing at a young age
Feel free to provide counterarguments i.e., any link to someone predicting Froome's greatness before the 2011 Vuelta, or an example of a clean rider performing at a similar high level without showing much talent at a young age

Talent is only successful if it is nurtured and has elite coaching from an early age.

Froome showed talent by coming 17th at the Commonwealths with rubbish equipment and little coaching, that is talent. I'm not sure how much coaching and nurturing Barloworld did but it is reasonably safe to say, Froome didn't have any elite coaching or nurturing until the end of 2009 when he was 24. Add in the bacterial infection they didn't discover until 2011, it is feasible what he has accomplished.

Or have you never in any sport heard of the term late bloomer?

So where are the guys who came ahead of Froome. Don't think they've won any WT races. Surely if the guy coming 17th had talent those ahead of him have more.

 

[Franklin]

Re: Re:

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

Sam, get it through your skull: we are pretty sure they all are doping, which is another reason it's improbable (to be generous) that Sky is clean.

There's no contention there!

As to why Sky is so succesful. I posted the clear parallels with USPS for you. And yes, those are also simple facts.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

We get it. The British are simply superior. Before, when they used their superior Protestant ethics to not use drugs they where rubbish at pro cycling but superior at having great morals, now that they are playing the same game as everybody else they are physically superior, organizationally superior and mentally superior.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

Why is it seems those who feel as strong that Froome isn't doping as the ones who think he is, seem to get attacked a bit more personally?

Quite simple gazr99

Those who think Froome is doping rely on facts.

Think of it like this:

You are in a bicycle shop. Someone walks into your shop and starts yelling to all your customers that they should use water to grease their bearings. When you explain that the mechanical characteristics of water are not suited as grease they start to explain that science is not exact, water is fine, you are not an expert.

You would be pissed.

Thats what is happening here. The Froome doubters have numerous facts that point towards doping, supported by science. Sky releases data that's missleading (at best), as simple math shows it can't be right. Yet there are a few posters who are frothing at the mouth and screaming that the science is wrong, Sky's numbers must be right and that we are just evil people.

It's hard to argue with Froome fans when they dismiss facts and reject simple math and science. It''s facts versus fanatical belief.

As is shown by for example Sam and the Spud who reject the science and math.

Really I haven't seen many on this forum use facts to prove Froome is doping. Some have used data that another other has made a scientific guess at, picking the data that fits their theory best. I have seen some people claim Froome said he weighs 62kg but never backed it up.

Rest of the time the argument is, Froome is winning too convincingly, Sky are performing too well they must be doping. Those against Froome have interpreted certain numbers and ignored others to support their argument, whilst those for Froome have taken the Sky numbers as true to say he is not doping and been told they shouldn't be arguing

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

The vein argument is ridicolous. You guys really think you need a PED to have veins like that?
No one of you has ever trained either cycling or even in the gym? If you had you'd know that it all comes down to low bodyfat and you don't necessarily need a PED for that...

This is nothing...
check this thread forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13462

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

so much lol

 

[Froomster]

Re:

Froome Video of Mont Ventuox with power on it

http://www.lemonde.fr/tour-de-france/article/2015/07/15/tour-de-france-la-video-qui-fait-peur-au-clan-froome_4683745_1616918.html

That is golden! What a bunch of friggin liars Sky are!

Physics reared its ugly head in the Alps today, when Sky revealed that Chris Froome’s dominant ride in the Pyrenees last week was the result of an effort of 5.78 W/kg.

One small problem – other cyclists had already released their power output from that climb (to add to a growing body of this data). And theirs is higher than Froome’s, yet they rode it slower. By a lot. According to their power files, Robert Gesink and Adam Yates both produced more than 5.8W/kg on the very same climb. They lost 1:33 and 2:04 respectively.

Sir Dave has sold himself, body and soul, to the devil.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

Funnily enough, the Sky folks themselves insist 2013 was perfectly in keeping with late 2011, i.e. no major improvement in those two years. It didn't take Froome 3 years of steady improvement - he went from decent rider to absolute freak in a matter of weeks or months at most, right before the 2011 Vuelta.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

I know you think i skip 2011 Vuelta, but Molema was 4th within similar transformation and came through a traditional road career, and KOM was Moncoutié, so I don't believe it carries much weight as you want it to?

 

[Lanark]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

I know you think i skip 2011 Vuelta, but Molema was 4th within similar transformation and came through a traditional road career, and KOM was Moncoutié, so I don't believe it carries much weight as you want it to?

Ýou're joking right? Mollema had a completely normal progression, won the Tour de L'Avenir as an espoir...finished 12th in his first GT. Besides, Froome absolutely crushes him these days, despite showing far less talent at a young age.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

I know you think i skip 2011 Vuelta, but Molema was 4th within similar transformation and came through a traditional road career, and KOM was Moncoutié, so I don't believe it carries much weight as you want it to?

Look, this is just absurd. Mollema had already been 12th at the Giro, won l'Avenir and Circuito Montañés, and had quite a few top 10 placings in WT races (2010 Poland, 2011 Paris-Nice, Catalunya and Suisse). Furthermore, he did NOT come from a traditional road career, as he had only started racing a few years prior. Stop making *** up.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

sam....you are talking to people who in my case have raced at a pretty high level and who have watched champions come and go in real time since Lemond...when it is said Froome is unbelievable...Froome is unbelievable.....

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Mollema started cycling in 2005 and won Circuite Montanes and l'Avenir two years later

 

[No_Balls]

Re: Re:

I'm aware of that, but if your belief is the top 30 are on PEDs based on erroneous observations like less-than perfect palamares, vein bulginess, time gains or comparing todays peloton to that of cycling's past it seems like a belief based on the logic of a type of religion and not the evidence in front of you and I'm not comfortable when belief-alone is used to accuse someone of something they can't prove because it requires the evidence of absence, which is simply impossible.

Oh dear Sam, I think you are a little bit confused.
Just a few Facts:

1. Hiring a Doping doctor
2. Having a DS who is extremely friendly with the dope courier of Lance, just a few weeks before the TdF
3. Multiple blatant lies by manager on things concerning doping and transparency.
4. Lieing about wattages. Because, truly, the posted wattages can't be true...or they are falsely reporting Froomes weight.
5. Having performmances that in the past only have been possible with doping. Which combined with 4 really should get you angry at Sky instead of rejecting ssacience and going into fantasy modus,

Belief:

1. believing everything Dave Brailsford says even though they are clearly lies.

You are on the side of blind faiith and magical skyfairies, whereas the critics are solidly on the facts concluding it's almost certainly doping

You should understand that I'm really uncomfortable talking with someone who believes in magic and trusts the words of a proven patholoigical liar and can only reject facts as they hurt his hero-worship.

1. OK, so Team Sky have doping doctors like every other team
2/3/4 Sure, Team Sky lies about doping when asked just like every other team and rider will
5. They are doing the same as everyone else given your belief of 1,2,3 & 4 therefore it's not the doping making them so dominant is it?

This is my point, you believe they are the same as the other teams and doping, yet can't give a reason why they are dominant and not them. The nearest anyone gets is saying 'oh, Contador, Nibali, Quintana and everyone else are not on top form this year' Bollocks!

We get it. The British are simply superior. Before, when they used their superior Protestant ethics to not use drugs they where rubbish at pro cycling but superior at having great morals, now that they are playing the same game as everybody else they are physically superior, organizationally superior and mentally superior.

This. They are going for a double which is keeping up to the masterrace narrative to prove not only that they are cleanest of the clean but the others are still doping. Then they will complain on people of being "anti-british"' when not sticking to Guardians masterrace theory.

What i dont believe is the few, angry, yet very vocal posters on here in this period of time not seen before. Makes one think Sky has sleeping accounts ready for engagement.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Froome won Tour de France in year 3 at Sky, it wasn't exactly an overnight transformation and it's not like they just plucked him off the plane from Africa and said 'you'll do' either is it?

Sam, if you do not know when Froome transformed you have no place in this discussion.

It's extremely tell-tale that you focus on his first TdF win. It marks you as a July-fanboy who is so wiede-eyed about his hero and the amazing story that he feels the need to talk along with people who simplly know much more of the sport.

Seriously Sam, get educated on cycling instead of being such an embarrasment to yourself.

Joined Sky 2010, won 2013, I make that 3 years to win Tour de France. Your point?

I know you think i skip 2011 Vuelta, but Molema was 4th within similar transformation and came through a traditional road career, and KOM was Moncoutié, so I don't believe it carries much weight as you want it to?

Ýou're joking right? Mollema had a completely normal progression, won the Tour de L'Avenir as an espoir...finished 12th in his first GT. Besides, Froome absolutely crushes him these days, despite showing far less talent at a young age.

No, Valverde & Contador wern't riding 2011 Vuelta. They returned for 2012 with Contador 1st, Valverde 2nd, Rodríguez 3rd, Froome 4th. Mollema 28th.
I'm just saying you can't view a cheating Froome winning today against Contador & Valverde any differently than a cheating Contador & Valverde winning against Froome in 2012 Vuelta and use lack of palamares as justification as doping or final GC classification.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

This. They are going for a double which is keeping up to the masterrace narrative to prove not only that they are cleanest of the clean but the others are still doping. Then they will complain on people of being "anti-british"' when not sticking to Guardians masterrace theory.

What i dont believe is the few, angry, yet very vocal posters on here in this period of time not seen before. Makes one think Sky has sleeping accounts ready for engagement.

gordonstoun, muscular christianity, chariots of fire, redgrave, muscular christianity, oxbridge, harrow

#Poeslaw

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

[

Nope, that's really not the point
If you take someone like Sastre, doped or not, the guy won a single GT when all the stars aligned in his favor
Chris Froome has won a Tour in a dominant fashion, could've done it in 2012, looks like he'll do it again this year
Meanwhile he also wins Dauphines, Romandies, and other races
He also posts multiple very impressive climbing times
The assumption at work here is that, if a rider is capable of dominating three Tours and a plethora of other races, clean, his talent should've been visible at a younger age
If you take the current top 10 of the Tour, ALL those riders have been hailed as future GT contenders at a very young age - apart from Froome (and probably Thomas)
On the other hand, nobody said anything about Froome contending GT's, let alone dominate multiple Tours, before he suddenly went head to head with Cobo in the Vuelta
That is the point
Froome's performances imply talent showing at a young age
Feel free to provide counterarguments i.e., any link to someone predicting Froome's greatness before the 2011 Vuelta, or an example of a clean rider performing at a similar high level without showing much talent at a young age

Talent is only successful if it is nurtured and has elite coaching from an early age.

Froome showed talent by coming 17th at the Commonwealths with rubbish equipment and little coaching, that is talent. I'm not sure how much coaching and nurturing Barloworld did but it is reasonably safe to say, Froome didn't have any elite coaching or nurturing until the end of 2009 when he was 24. Add in the bacterial infection they didn't discover until 2011, it is feasible what he has accomplished.

Or have you never in any sport heard of the term late bloomer?

So where are the guys who came ahead of Froome. Don't think they've won any WT races. Surely if the guy coming 17th had talent those ahead of him have more.[/quote]

Read my actual point where I also say about poor equipment and little coaching then come back to me. FYI Cummings was one of the men who beat him and Froome was 20 at the time