Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[samhocking]

Everybody from amateur to pro are riding 5mph faster today than they were in the 90's and 2000's apart from a few genetic freaks and I don't think it's proof of doping today necessarily. Is everyone in my club doping who are riding faster today than we did in 2000 doping? I would say the biggest reason is training with power. Not only for riding faster, but we've had guys join at 18 with no race experience, just riding a bike for fun and they buy all the kit, get a coach, power meter and 2 of them are now Pro within 4 years. 18-21 and now pro. That never used to happen apart from the really genetically gifted riders and even then, it was almost required to be winning races at Junior level to step up and get a pro contract.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

I tell you why I am broke.

I am sick of the totally hypocrisy thats surrounds cycling. I have watched pro cycling since it started on the Channel 4 in the early 80s when I was a bairn. I was naive, loved it, used to go out an emulate the riders, it was ace. Then of course you grown up etc.

I still love my cycling, I visit the races and its amazing Yorkshire have the TDY, I havent missed a stage live yet. I still get that buzz when the peloton passes you and you get the breeze of the wind as they pass and smell of the liniment.

Whilst watching this years Giro on FB I am (was) a member of a group of my local club where we discuss the pro races. The slagging off that Nibali was getting by some people was laughable. He isnt allowed to be super human, yet the Dawg could ride up Ventoux this afternoon and overtake Moto's on his way and he would be god like.

Astana are dodgy as f@ck with Vino, but when has Nibali tested positive? When I asked them for evidence, all they said was 'It's Astana' that's fair do's in my eyes, but when I point out Leiners and Yates et al, I get lambasted and told 'thats not evidence' well its as good as yours!

Then this week I am broken with the ******!T 'doing a Froomey' for riding on his top tube as if it's a f@cking new thing. What next? Sky invented the f@cking bicycle? They said they have been learning on how to catch teams out etc. Brailsford is a politician speaking fraud, trying anyway to pull the wool over any layman's eyes. Yet the media companies totally lap it up and jizz one out over it.

Maybe I should just come off social media, I dunno. What's it like in countries like Italy? Are they as hysterical when Nibs does something?

Don't their minds explode when you ask them why Nibali has to be doping to acheive 5.9 W/kg, while Froome can do 6.3 clean?

Anyway, don't get too hang up on it. You are clearly more intelligent and mentally and emotionally mature than your friends. That's a good thing. Ignorance is bliss, if they believe in Superman, let them. Froome and DB are the ones that deserve justice and while it hasn't come yet, they are part of a world - top level cycling, so marred in corruption and with so many frauds and criminals and bullies, that none of us would want to be a part of. Enjoy the immense frustration it causes them to see their continued failure to be able to persuade more than a handful of people that they are actually clean.
And hold out hope that one day justice will come, one way or another.

And btw, I admire you Martin. You represent almost perfectly, exactly the type of audience DB aims his nonesence at. British, keen cyclist and cycling fan, into the sport for decades, close cycling circle of friends, active in cycling community and on cycling media, middle England (I assume)

But you are one of the few who see past the BS, don't buy into the cheap propaganda and overplayed nationalism. You are strong enough to resist it. We've seen on this forum ppl from your tribe so to speak, like dim and JR Anton, and others, who see and understand that sky cannot possibly be clean, but they just cannot, under any circumstances accept that one of their own could do any wrong and their minds dwelve into deep delusion, as their imaginations explode to try and conjure up an explanation, any explanation they can convince themselves to accept.

You, and a few others like you I know on twitter, give all of us hope.

 

[The Hitch]

Everybody from amateur to pro are riding 5mph faster today than they were in the 90's and 2000's apart from a few genetic freaks and I don't think it's proof of doping today necessarily. Is everyone in my club doping who are riding faster today than we did in 2000 doping? I would say the biggest reason is training with power. Not only for riding faster, but we've had guys join at 18 with no race experience, just riding a bike for fun and they buy all the kit, get a coach, power meter and 2 of them are now Pro within 4 years. 18-21 and now pro. That never used to happen apart from the really genetically gifted riders and even then, it was almost required to be winning races at Junior level to step up and get a pro contract.

No one said increased speeds were proof of doping. In fact it was one of your own who brought it up and everyone else said it wasn't.

So you aren't impressing anyone with this. Though I understand its really hard to argue with the sceptics and think of any arguments that sky are clean so its always easier to fight imaginary strawmen instead

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.

So basically doped to the gills.

Though to be fair, the chart is average speed, which is a very flawed way of measuring doping.

That's the difference between the skeptics (or many of us anyway) and the fraudsters and their fans.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof, we admit it and point out the holes in it. Sky and their defenders meanwhile will cling to anything, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the logic, to advance the idea that there could be some non doping explanation for what we are seeing.

So no, it wasn't, it was one of 'your side' (which is a ridiculous term anyway, I'm not pro-sky) that said equalling mid-90s = doped to the gills.

Having said that, even the biggest skeptics must read that post and cringe at how utterly wrong it is. The skeptics have just shifted their angle of attack no matter what evidence supports the idea he may be clean. Acting as if there's been some kind of conciliatory 'ok fair enough he may not be' attitude is just bollocks. Pure and simple.

I'm not a sky fanboy as mentioned before, but I prefer my doped riders exposed by evidence rather than those who made their mind up years ago that 'nobody can win the tour clean'.

 

[Nellyspania]

Re:

'We've been working on catching other teams by surprise' - Sir Dave Brailsford tells Europsort

How does one work on catching other teams by surprise? :lol:

This did make me giggle.

I have a mate who sometimes wears a Sky jersey consistently beats me in sprints to town signs; he always takes me by surprise...

Once I've perfected 120RPM sitting on the top tube he's toast...

 

[thehog]

Everybody from amateur to pro are riding 5mph faster today than they were in the 90's and 2000's apart from a few genetic freaks and I don't think it's proof of doping today necessarily. Is everyone in my club doping who are riding faster today than we did in 2000 doping? I would say the biggest reason is training with power. Not only for riding faster, but we've had guys join at 18 with no race experience, just riding a bike for fun and they buy all the kit, get a coach, power meter and 2 of them are now Pro within 4 years. 18-21 and now pro. That never used to happen apart from the really genetically gifted riders and even then, it was almost required to be winning races at Junior level to step up and get a pro contract.

No one said increased speeds were proof of doping. In fact it was one of your own who brought it up and everyone else said it wasn't.

So you aren't impressing anyone with this. Though I understand its really hard to argue with the sceptics and think of any arguments that sky are clean so its always easier to fight imaginary strawmen instead

Based on the fact the Tour route changes each year and there was the removal of 900km from the entire route in the 80's I'm not sure what this graph is supposed to represent.

As far as a data point for anything is next to worthless. My sense is the person who posted has very little handle on basic mathematics.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.

So basically doped to the gills.

Though to be fair, the chart is average speed, which is a very flawed way of measuring doping.

That's the difference between the skeptics (or many of us anyway) and the fraudsters and their fans.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof, we admit it and point out the holes in it. Sky and their defenders meanwhile will cling to anything, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the logic, to advance the idea that there could be some non doping explanation for what we are seeing.

So no, it wasn't, it was one of 'your side' (which is a ridiculous term anyway, I'm not pro-sky) that said equalling mid-90s = doped to the gills.

Having said that, even the biggest skeptics must read that post and cringe at how utterly wrong it is. The skeptics have just shifted their angle of attack no matter what evidence supports the idea he may be clean. Acting as if there's been some kind of conciliatory 'ok fair enough he may not be' attitude is just bollocks. Pure and simple.

I'm not a sky fanboy as mentioned before, but I prefer my doped riders exposed by evidence rather than those who made their mind up years ago that 'nobody can win the tour clean'.

You seem to be confused. The 90's comparison was not regarding average tour speeds but mountain ascent speeds. totally different.

No one claims there is a conciliatory "ok fair enough he may not be" attitude, becuase there isn't. in 2016 there is absolutely no room for anyone who's looked at Froome to believe he is clean.

And the argument that Froome is doping has nothing to do with the idea "that nobody can win the tour clean". I don't know if "nobody" can win the tour clean, I know that Froome can't

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I tell you why I am broke.

I am sick of the totally hypocrisy thats surrounds cycling. I have watched pro cycling since it started on the Channel 4 in the early 80s when I was a bairn. I was naive, loved it, used to go out an emulate the riders, it was ace. Then of course you grown up etc.

I still love my cycling, I visit the races and its amazing Yorkshire have the TDY, I havent missed a stage live yet. I still get that buzz when the peloton passes you and you get the breeze of the wind as they pass and smell of the liniment.

Whilst watching this years Giro on FB I am (was) a member of a group of my local club where we discuss the pro races. The slagging off that Nibali was getting by some people was laughable. He isnt allowed to be super human, yet the Dawg could ride up Ventoux this afternoon and overtake Moto's on his way and he would be god like.

Astana are dodgy as f@ck with Vino, but when has Nibali tested positive? When I asked them for evidence, all they said was 'It's Astana' that's fair do's in my eyes, but when I point out Leiners and Yates et al, I get lambasted and told 'thats not evidence' well its as good as yours!

Then this week I am broken with the ******!T 'doing a Froomey' for riding on his top tube as if it's a f@cking new thing. What next? Sky invented the f@cking bicycle? They said they have been learning on how to catch teams out etc. Brailsford is a politician speaking fraud, trying anyway to pull the wool over any layman's eyes. Yet the media companies totally lap it up and jizz one out over it.

Maybe I should just come off social media, I dunno. What's it like in countries like Italy? Are they as hysterical when Nibs does something?

Don't their minds explode when you ask them why Nibali has to be doping to acheive 5.9 W/kg, while Froome can do 6.3 clean?

Anyway, don't get too hang up on it. You are clearly more intelligent and mentally and emotionally mature than your friends. That's a good thing. Ignorance is bliss, if they believe in Superman, let them. Froome and DB are the ones that deserve justice and while it hasn't come yet, they are part of a world - top level cycling, so marred in corruption and with so many frauds and criminals and bullies, that none of us would want to be a part of. Enjoy the immense frustration it causes them to see their continued failure to be able to persuade more than a handful of people that they are actually clean.
And hold out hope that one day justice will come, one way or another.

And btw, I admire you Martin. You represent almost perfectly, exactly the type of audience DB aims his nonesence at. British, keen cyclist and cycling fan, into the sport for decades, close cycling circle of friends, active in cycling community and on cycling media, middle England (I assume)

But you are one of the few who see past the BS, don't buy into the cheap propaganda and overplayed nationalism. You are strong enough to resist it. We've seen on this forum ppl from your tribe so to speak, like dim and JR Anton, and others, who see and understand that sky cannot possibly be clean, but they just cannot, under any circumstances accept that one of their own could do any wrong and their minds dwelve into deep delusion, as their imaginations explode to try and conjure up an explanation, any explanation they can convince themselves to accept.

You, and a few others like you I know on twitter, give all of us hope.

Some wars are worth fighting. Not sure this one is.

Enjoy the racing. Cycling has always been corrupt.

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

Seems odd to use that energy before Ventoux.

Is he using energy or a switch

He didn't say Froome's own energy. :lol:

 

[nayr497]

At least that was an exciting stage yesterday.

 

[Tienus]

Someone decided to do his own technical check on Froomes bike?

 

[deeno1975]

Fcuk me that was a crazy crazy finish... Froome on the run !!!!!

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Fcuk me that was a crazy crazy finish... Froome on the run !!!!!

Run, Froomey, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[58teeth]

Re: Re:

Fcuk me that was a crazy crazy finish... Froome on the run !!!!!

Run, Froomey, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol

 

[gazr99]

Right who did it? That was like something from most posters' here wet dream

 

[ontheroad]

I'm by no means Froome's biggest fan as he has made a joke out of the sport but today the sport made a joke out of him running up the Ventoux. You have to have sympathy for him. I reckon the time will be neutralised.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I'm by no means Froome's biggest fan as he has made a joke out of the sport but today the sport made a joke out of him running up the Ventoux. You have to have sympathy for him. I reckon the time will be neutralised.

I don't think it should. Quintana is light and loses time on flat stages in the wind. Today Froome and Porte the same. I sense Porte was looking down.

Yates takes yellow.

 

[ontheroad]

I would also add that I hope the time ISN'T neutralised and then we will all get what we really want. Froome having to chase a deficit and going full gas for the remainder of the tour and still winning it.

 

[junkie]

By the way, shouldn't Dawg be penalised for running without a bike?

 

[DFA123]

If they keep the time gaps from today, we might still get to see him go full genius at some point in this race. Although based on Quintana's showing today, he won't really have to anyway.

What a joke of a race. Froome was running at a reasonable pace in his cleats on 9%. He could certainly follow Lance into triathlon.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I would also add that I hope the time ISN'T neutralised and then we will all get what we really want. Froome having to chase a deficit and going full gas for the remainder of the tour and still winning it.

Very true, full genius time.

It was Porte mistake but those two spend so much time looking at stems and Porte leading it was bound to happen.

 

[thehog]

However the stage was not categorised as stage where the 3km rule is applied.

 

[ontheroad]

Did anyone notice Froome drifting back down the mountain to Porte just before their alien attack. Porte is still Froome's best super dom.

 

[deeno1975]

Froome has moved down to fifth place at 53 seconds down on Yates.... He'll easily make it up and go into Tour folklore ...

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Froome has moved down to fifth place at 53 seconds down on Yates.... He'll easily make it up and go into Tour folklore ...

Back in yellow this time tomorrow.