Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[panache]

Not responding to any thought in particular, just voicing my opinion about Froome's dominance/ advantages...

The only place someone like Nairo is going to be superior to Froome is in w/kg. To use that to his advantage, Nairo needs a long, one-on-one ascent where the slight differential results in a slowly expanding gap. If you are Froome, how do you deal with that?

1. Build a train that shortens the fight to just a few kilometers of one-on-one where 5 minute threshold means more than 20 minute to hour threshold.
3. Use every trick available, (legal, questionable, illegal), to minimize the w/kg disadvantage.
2. Grab time here and there in the non-TT, non-climbing portions of the race that favor your overall power advantage. Build up enough to counter the 30 seconds Nairo might pick up on the MTFs.
3. Use your power advantage to dominate the TT.
4. Get a lead early, so that when you finally are isolated with Nairo, that you only need to follow his wheel, thereby negating his w/kg advantage, and potentially even crushing him in the last 2k as he burns himself trying.
5. Don't crash.

This forces Nairo to dominate the mountains, hide well from the wind, not crash, beat the Sky Train, TT out of his mind, or hope for a jour sans from Froome to have any chance. Less powerful riders have a disadvantage everywhere in cycling except when the road climbs, therefore more chances for bad days.Wind, cobbles, sprints, TTs, accelerations, pushed around by the pellet on itself, TTTs, downhills, 6.8 kg bikes, etc.

It is easier to win the Tour by starting with 475w of sustainable power and 6.2 w/kg than with 400w and 6.3 w/kg. Both require doping in my world view. However the doping and training path to get Froome's numbers is far easier for a much bigger and formally heavier rider. I'm not sure the dope exists to allow Nairo to make up the pure watts advantage to someone who is 10% larger.

For what Nairo Quintana is, he impresses me for how close he does get. It explains how Porte can look so impressive in certain situations vs. Froome, but never actually get close to winning a GT. W/kg will not win the TDF unless total power is also close to that of your rivals. To beat Froome, you need to be within 20-30 watts in total power, and exceed him in w/kg. His training and "supplementation" regime will never allow a rival to be much more powerful but even lighter.

The person who beats Froome in the TDF has close to his raw power and w/kg, but has more inherent natural ability, is better on a bike, etc. Contador and Nibali are the only two currently that seem to have that. Nibali doesn't seem as disciplined in his build up, and Contador gives up too much in raw power when the conditions (cobbles, wind, sprints) demand it.

Smaller stage races and the Giro and Vuelta have fewer advantages for pure power, leveling the playing field for the Quintanas, Portes, Arus, etc. The Tour is a wide open racetrack by comparison.

 

[Bag of Guts]

Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but...Has there been much talk about about Froome's efforts on the Mavic bike yesterday? Watching him toiling up Ventoux was like a nostalgic flashback to the infamous 2009 Giro zig zag.

(23.46)...
http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/dailymotion/?title=Last+5+Km+of+Stage+12&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=x4k8alt&yr=2016

I know people are saying that the pedals/cleats were all wrong but it just looked like he had absolutely no power in his legs at all. Then, as soon as Sky got a bike to him he was immediately a beast again. I had to laugh when Phil says "It's like the bike isn't even working" given all the recent speculation about motors. Is it crazy to think, "ah, so that's him without a motor"? It'd be a relief to discover that the world wasn't actually turned on its head in August 2011 and even though we now live in Biff Tannen's Pleasure World we can at least rest assured that donkeys stay donkeys.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re:

Yeah, probably because it's a point you can't answer.

(I really am going now....keep it peaceful Sam)

It's a point that has been answered many times in the past. It's also unrelated to what I was saying, and what you were responding to.

So based on that quick change of topic, I presume you agree that contrary to what you said, Froome riding like Armstrong and Indurian is in fact not how the Tour is always, or even often, won, and that contrary to what you implied, Froome is more doped up than than anyone.

As to your novel question, randomly select a few pages of this thread or the Sky thread and I'm sure you'll see it answered.

 

[Saint Unix]

Why do we hate Froome? Because him and his team have taken the entertainment out of cycling. That's something many other superdopers like of Bertie, Schleck, Vino, Pantani and so on never did. Even Horner's comedy hour over in Spain was hilarious in its own disgusting way. If Sky has it their way, every stage of every race is just brutal, mind-numbing monotony all day long, apart from when Froome hits the motor switch at the very end.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Sh**! I'M TRYING TO LEAVE AND YOU ARE DRAWING ME BACK IN !!!

People for the love of god, let this man go on his beer run.

 

[Tienus]

Re:

Sorry if this has been discussed to death, but...Has there been much talk about about Froome's efforts on the Mavic bike yesterday? Watching him toiling up Ventoux was like a nostalgic flashback to the infamous 2009 Giro zig zag.

(23.46)...
http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/dailymotion/?title=Last+5+Km+of+Stage+12&dashboard=tour-de-france&id=x4k8alt&yr=2016

I know people are saying that the pedals/cleats were all wrong but it just looked like he had absolutely no power in his legs at all. Then, as soon as Sky got a bike to him he was immediately a beast again. I had to laugh when Phil says "It's like the bike isn't even working" given all the recent speculation about motors. Is it crazy to think, "ah, so that's him without a motor"? It'd be a relief to discover that the world wasn't actually turned on its head in August 2011 and even though we now live in Biff Tannen's Pleasure World we can at least rest assured that donkeys stay donkeys.

I also thought he should have been riding faster even though he had the wrong pedals and sadle height. Also when a team member passed with correct pedals he did not thake his bike but decided to wait for his own bike.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Why do we hate Froome? Because him and his team have taken the entertainment out of cycling. That's something many other superdopers like of Bertie, Schleck, Vino, Pantani and so on never did. Even Horner's comedy hour over in Spain was hilarious in its own disgusting way. If Sky has it their way, ever stage of every race just brutal, mind-numbing monotony all day long, apart from when Froome hits the motor switch at the very end.

Agreed. Schleck, Vino and Pantani were vulnerable - they had bad days and were definitely beatable. And they tried ridiculous things mostly to entertain, not to underline their dominance. Contador was less vulnerable at his peak, but he carried the Armstrong-slayer status for a long time which made him fresh and more popular, plus he leaned far less on his team to suck the life out of the race.

Froome's style is akin to the worst kind of dopers - the Armstrongs or Indurains. Just sucking all the life out of what should be the best cycling event of the season. Like Armstrong, he occasionally goes on ridiculous attacks purely to underline his dominance and kill any hopes of the opposition.

 

[Rob27172]

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ***.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have *** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

Sums it up nicely for me.

Just out of interest can anyone tell me something that Sky have brought to the sport that is a brand new method of training etc.

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

Agreed. Schleck, Vino and Pantani were vulnerable - they had bad days and were definitely beatable. And they tried ridiculous things mostly to entertain, not to underline their dominance. Contador was less vulnerable at his peak, but he carried the Armstrong-slayer status for a long time which made him fresh and more popular, plus he leaned far less on his team to suck the life out of the race.

Froome's style is akin to the worst kind of dopers - the Armstrongs or Indurains. Just sucking all the life out of what should be the best cycling event of the season. Like Armstrong, he occasionally goes on ridiculous attacks purely to underline his dominance and kill any hopes of the opposition.

Peak Contador won the Tour while having to work more against his own team than the rest of the peloton. Even in his less powerful recent years he tries the occasional crazy stunt to win a race, like with his solo attack up Passo Lanciano at the 2014 Tirreno where he went with more than 30km left to ride and put almost two minutes into every other GC rider.

Contador is - apart from all the doping - a proper champion. A rider who will do anything within his own capabilities as a bike rider to win a race. Riding with a fever on the hottest day of the Tour? He'll fight until there's nothing left in the tank. Riding with a broken leg? He'll still fight. At the end of the day, he will do anything within his physical capabilities as a rider to win, and if it doesn't quite cut it, at least he'll have tried his best. No hiding behind the team and running to the officials when things go awry.

Yes, he's a doper and has done nothing to help clean up the sport, but I have a lot of respect for Contador as a proper bike riding hard man. Same goes for Tyler Hamilton. They will turn the pedals until every ounce of sense and logic tells them not to, and then they'll turn the pedals some more. I even gained a little respect for Froome after he went full Obree on the descent a few days ago. The fans want to see death-defying racing, ill-advised attacks from far out and a lot of pain and suffering. Sky's machine-like train riding up and down the hills is the opposite of that, even if the riders in different-coloured kits are grimacing like tortured animals behind them.

 

[ontheroad]

A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.

 

[thehog]

Re:

A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.

Do you have a link or a screen shot of the Walsh filing?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

A few good posts above surmising why we hate them. They are sticking 2 fingers up to anyone with half a brain. The spend on PR relative to other areas is telling in itself. A few fatcats at the top are drinking from the trough and need to perpetuate the myth of marginal gains and other such b****it to strike a chord with the casual viewer. They can then create an aura around mythical training methods, preparation and psychology of sport for which there is a massive global market full of plenty of spivs and spoofers. Brailsford Limited for example, a company controlled by Dave Gainsford made profits of £865k for the last filed accounts that can be seen on the public record. That's only his income away from Sky cycling. Its easy to see why Brailsford likes to try and cheat the public into believing they are doing anything drastically different than anyone else. He's riding the gravy train. Thats not to mention his salary from this company or his massive salary from Sky cycling itself. being at the cutting edge of science to make their money away from the sport. David Walsh another who has a book publishing company has filed accounts with accumulated protits to date of over £550k (although some may be from the Armstrong book) on the back of Sky book deals. Not to mention his likely big salary that News Corps, through the Sunday Times, pay him to positively promote and fester this idea of a clean team. He done a good job with Armstrong and has decided that it is harvest time. Ballester and Kimmage must wonder where it all went wrong when they see the direction Walsh has veered into. Then you have Cookson who is like the dog being wagged by the tail of sky. Instead of leading he is seriously compromised and is far worse than McQuaid or Herbruggen ever were. An utterly useless leader. Then you have the media who are so cowardly that they don't have the guts to challenge or call them out over it. They are doing their profession a disservice by standing by applauding. They say that money corrupts and this growing monster of team sky bears full testimony to that.

Do you have a link or a screen shot of the Walsh filing?

It is true, doping pays!

 

[Jarnix83]

Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

This. Very nice summing up why Sky is the worst thing that happened cycling since Lance.

Also, I would like to think that after many years of following cycling you somehow get a feeling of the level of talent certain riders have. How do they behave mentally, how did they perform as young riders etc. Froome has not displayed many signs of being a great talent. He was signed by the "classic" doping team Barloworld and showed nothing. Sky has sure found ways to groom all the potential in Chris Froome...

My fear is that DB and the rest of Sky management will reach a new state of über-hubris and decide to take on a new project just to show "what science and strength of will can take you", i.e. take a more or less random casual rider and turn him into a world-beater.

Sagan, Contador, Nibali etc would have been great riders even in a doping free environment as they have racing mentality and also are very complete cyclists (see results in one-day races for examples). Froome would still be doing the zig zag in the mountains....

 

[gazr99]

Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

So basically you dislike them because they have brought something new to the sport, going against its traditional values and in the TDF it has worked, whilst deciding they must be lying and cheating to do this. This is similar reaction to teams that do well in a lot of sports, I hated Manchester United because they keep bloody winning and called them cheats always getting the rub of the green, Leicester in rugby, Red Bull in F1 and so on. Its a standard reaction.

Do I believe the entire peloton is doping no, do i think some are definitely, members of Sky may or may not be involved I can't say definitively that they are.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

So basically you dislike them because they have brought something new to the sport, going against its traditional values and in the TDF it has worked, whilst deciding they must be lying and cheating to do this. This is similar reaction to teams that do well in a lot of sports, I hated Manchester United because they keep bloody winning and called them cheats always getting the rub of the green, Leicester in rugby, Red Bull in F1 and so on. Its a standard reaction.

Do I believe the entire peloton is doping no, do i think some are definitely, members of Sky may or may not be involved I can't say definitively that they are.

Why reply if you're going to ignore the entire point of his post?

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

So basically you dislike them because they have brought something new to the sport, going against its traditional values and in the TDF it has worked, whilst deciding they must be lying and cheating to do this. This is similar reaction to teams that do well in a lot of sports, I hated Manchester United because they keep bloody winning and called them cheats always getting the rub of the green, Leicester in rugby, Red Bull in F1 and so on. Its a standard reaction.

Do I believe the entire peloton is doping no, do i think some are definitely, members of Sky may or may not be involved I can't say definitively that they are.

Why reply if you're going to ignore the entire point of his post?

Because I haven't? He has decided that they aren't bringing anything new like they say they are and are lying and cheating to win. Which is what i said

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

To answer why people dislike Sky and Froome or Wiggins
People do not like to feel as though they are being taken for a fool
It is fine to see a full peleton of doped riders battling to see who is the best
the classic battles of the past won or lost in seconds or on one stage where one person has a bad day and others are super strong. Lance, Bruyneel, Ullrich, Contador etc all had bad days and good days and all went about it in their own way

Why Sky is so different is that they are in it up to their necks and still insist on the holier than though, we are doing it all through science ******.

I dont care if the whole peleton dopes - I expect it.
I dont really care that there are favoured teams of the UCI and ASO - there are favoured teams in every sporting league in the world
I dont even care that they are probably paying to have **** hidden away and covered up - that is human nature and has been going on since money was invnted.

What i do hate is the whole team led by Brailsford and his monkeys insulting my intelligence by trying to tell me that everything I understand about a sport I have been involved in for 20+ years is completely wrong and that they are all super athletes doing stuff no one has ever thought of before and that I am a fool if I question them.

That is what people dislike so much about SKY and by default their riders, their hypocrisy and outright lying and deceit.

So basically you dislike them because they have brought something new to the sport, going against its traditional values and in the TDF it has worked, whilst deciding they must be lying and cheating to do this. This is similar reaction to teams that do well in a lot of sports, I hated Manchester United because they keep bloody winning and called them cheats always getting the rub of the green, Leicester in rugby, Red Bull in F1 and so on. Its a standard reaction.

Do I believe the entire peloton is doping no, do i think some are definitely, members of Sky may or may not be involved I can't say definitively that they are.

Why reply if you're going to ignore the entire point of his post?

It happens here more often. Glad to see you posting!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It's time for that one moment each year I post in the Clinic.

I'm here to mention to you my friends, that had Froome not helped Wiggins, and not crashed out two years ago, he'd be on to his 5th straight Tour win, just two behind the record set by Armstrong.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Re:

It's time for that one moment each year I post in the Clinic.

I'm here to mention to you my friends, that had Froome not helped Wiggins, and not crashed out two years ago, he'd be on to his 5th straight Tour win, just two behind the record set by Armstrong.

Moreover, if Froome's magical transformation had occurred but a couple months or so earlier, he'd have won the 2011 Tour and would be about to win his 6th.

 

[Ripper]

Re:

It's time for that one moment each year I post in the Clinic.

I'm here to mention to you my friends, that had Froome not helped Wiggins, and not crashed out two years ago, he'd be on to his 5th straight Tour win, just two behind the record set by Armstrong.

You don't believe in miracles!! :lol:

 

[kwikki]

Right....okay.....so Froome is now mythologized into a 6 time tour winner.

Just this one tour to go, then, and he will be Lance Resurrected.



(Massive hangover. Wake me up if Froome goes FR in today's stage)

 

[Pantani_lives]

Re:

It's time for that one moment each year I post in the Clinic.

I'm here to mention to you my friends, that had Froome not helped Wiggins, and not crashed out two years ago, he'd be on to his 5th straight Tour win, just two behind the record set by Armstrong.

If he hadn't helped Wiggins in 2012, going against the will of the mafia, his career would have been over. They would have found something to disqualify him or throw him out before the race was over. He would have been banned for life.

 

[doperhopper]

It's quite interesting to hear over years an years about how talented riders are nowadays, about science, testing, new training methods... and then you find out that even in the darkest era, with all that doping, EPO, bloodbags, etc, they could not beat Eddy on Eddy's bike for more than few meters ... and now in the "new clean era" everyone is so scared to even try that UCI had to allow aerodoping to revive The Hour (and keep in mind that Eddy started too fast, going for shorter distance records simultaneously - certainly could do more).

I know, it's different uphill vs. track, and there are factors like recovery over 3 GT weeks (so there can be improvements that will never be shown by The Hour) or 40 rpm hammering in the past vs. washing machine rpm now...

But still - nobody even thinks about Eddy vs. Vroom event ( or Wiggo/Spartacus/Panzer/Dumurain ) We would all love to see this - even with nowadays' better bikes or skinsuits, and maybe give them "pot belge" so that they are not "artificially disadvantaged".

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

It's time for that one moment each year I post in the Clinic.

I'm here to mention to you my friends, that had Froome not helped Wiggins, and not crashed out two years ago, he'd be on to his 5th straight Tour win, just two behind the record set by Armstrong.

If he hadn't helped Wiggins in 2012, going against the will of the mafia, his career would have been over. They would have found something to disqualify him or throw him out before the race was over. He would have been banned for life.

You are most likely correct.