Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.

Could you elaborate and call at least one reason why Contador, Nibali or any other cyclist should win the Tour and Froome should not on rational basis, not on emotional level you are constantly applying? Had AC / Aru / Nibali etc. been 1' ahead of Froome at the moment, and the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful... Typical double standarts on the go. The only Tour winner the thread truly deserves is C. Froome. End of.

 

[Lyon]

I think the secret behind Froome's success is that he simply refuses to get tired. Think about it! Now that he is winning he doesn't look tired at all but back when he was a looser cyclist he always looked so tired crossing the finish line. I think all this talk about marginal gains from SKY is meant to deflect from their real discovery: Don't get tired! The simplest solutions are often the best.

Why haven't this idea caught on in the rest of the peloton you ask? Simple. The competition are stuck in their old ways of thinking. Just imagine it, for years they have done it the old fashioned way (get tired, recover, get tired, recover - repeat, repeat, repeat) when all they needed to do was to start refusing to get tired. It is a paradigm shift in the world of endurance sports and like most paradigm shifts it seems so obvious after the fact.

 

[BullsFan22]

I think Froome will try out some dummies today, but tomorrow....tomorrow he'll attack at the Jeaux Plane and ride hard over the top and descent like a maniac to blow everyone apart, winning the overall by well over 5 minutes. Or sky will let a breakaway escape for a short while,before lining up single file, with Froome in tow, and then Froome will attack with 100km to go, catch the group, then they'll be torn apart one by one, until there's only one guy left with him at the foot of the final climb and then he too, will parish and Froome will be left flying (or is it spinning?) solo.

 

[kwikki]

Here's why Quintana thinks Froome is beating him:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-quintana-suspects-allergy-is-holding-him-back/

So he's acknowledging that he is far from his best. Thus hitting all the squeals of "Froome's beating The Best Climber in the World OMG!!!!!!" into the long grass.

Doubtless, somebody will be along to explain how Quintana doesn't know what he's talking about when he talks about himself.

 

[kwikki]

I think Froome will try out some dummies today, but tomorrow....tomorrow he'll attack at the Jeaux Plane and ride hard over the top and descent like a maniac to blow everyone apart, winning the overall by well over 5 minutes. Or sky will let a breakaway escape for a short while,before lining up single file, with Froome in tow, and then Froome will attack with 100km to go, catch the group, then they'll be torn apart one by one, until there's only one guy left with him at the foot of the final climb and then he too, will parish and Froome will be left flying (or is it spinning?) solo.

Froome is no longer a part of the race. What Froome does or doesn't do is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

Where did I say Nibali was clean? I only said that I doubt all of them were using doping when they were only juniors. Froome never had good results in any age category until 2011. That's unheard of in the history of cycling.

Well unless Froome is using a motor, he is also insanely talented. No amount of PEDs can turn a no-hoper into such a dominant world beater.

Yet, Froome - 2011.

Ok, so pre-2011, poor Froomey's drugs ain't working, if he was using any. But everyone else around him is juiced up. So he's already at a 10% disadvantage off the bat.

But he was more than 10% worse than the elite cyclists. Why?
This can partly be explained by poor energy conservation. In the past, whenever he felt good, he attacked and wasted energy, instead of just sitting back and doing something more tactically smart. Until the Vuelta 2011, where he was forced to stay on a leash and ride conservatively for Wiggins, he was wasting his energy in stupid places. All of a sudden, he was saving his energy for the finale, and at this point everyone realised he had potential. That on its own doesn't explain the massive transformation, but does partly explain it. Maybe there is also an element of truth to the bilzharia ****

To suggest Froome had little talent pre-Vuelta 2011 is ridiculous. Geraint Thomas, who definitely is pretty talented, was probably using a similar program to Froome before and after the 2015 TdF, and you don't see him winning any grand tours any time soon. Furthermore, when Team Sky was established, the guy who they believed was going to be the 'British rider winning the Tour within 5 years' was Froome himself before Wiggins got his 4th place at the 09 TdF. Sure, Froome had no talent before 2011

found this video of Froome on a leash in the 2011 vuelta, riding conservatively (15 mins in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8DdEdhy0A

Notice him keeping the company of, and eventually beating, of that known clean rider, Cobo.

I was on that hill that day. I remember walking up it beforehand and thinking that it was so steep that I'd actually look forward to seeing the pros struggle up it. Then that happened.

About 20/30 minutes after the head of the race passed, I recall seeing Johan Van Summeren having to pedal back and forth across the road, the gradient was so steep.

I barely knew who Froome was at that stage. It wasn't a gradual rise from mediocrity to ridiculousness. It was instant. It was ridiculous, and it still is.

He didn't know about the seated attack marginal gain back then.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.

Could you elaborate and call at least one reason why Contador, Nibali or any other cyclist should win the Tour and Froome should not on rational basis, not on emotional level you are constantly applying? Had AC / Aru / Nibali etc. been 1' ahead of Froome at the moment, and the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful... Typical double standarts on the go. The only Tour winner the thread truly deserves is C. Froome. End of.

I know you're not asking me...but it feels like your question possibly misses the point. We are all sick to death of seeing unreal performances. The more unreal it looks, the more sick we feel. Dawgy Dawg looks like the most egregious example of unreal performances many of us have ever seen. So we dislike and distrust him (his smug contemptuous smirk plastered across his fake 'nice-guy' face doesn't help either! (ok that's the emotional stuff you don't want)).

Contador, Nibs etc., are slightly less egregious because of their pedigree, they showed exceptional ability very early. So in the cesspool that is pro-cycling, it wouldn't be quite as bad if they were winning, but it's only a matter of degrees. I don't see anyone here suggesting 'the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful' if they were winning. Just very slightly less ridiculous than it is with Badzilla-boy.

 

[buckle]

One of the positives for Froome (sic) is that even if caught he can go straight into Celebrity Big Brother as the token bad boy. Even Strictly Come Dancing ("Dancing with the Stars") is an option with the opportunity for an affair with a high class Russian courtesan. Failure is an option nowadays. Plenty of money still to be made.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.

Could you elaborate and call at least one reason why Contador, Nibali or any other cyclist should win the Tour and Froome should not on rational basis, not on emotional level you are constantly applying? Had AC / Aru / Nibali etc. been 1' ahead of Froome at the moment, and the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful... Typical double standarts on the go. The only Tour winner the thread truly deserves is C. Froome. End of.

I know you're not asking me...but it feels like your question possibly misses the point. We are all sick to death of seeing unreal performances. The more unreal it looks, the more sick we feel. Dawgy Dawg looks like the most egregious example of unreal performances many of us have ever seen. So we dislike and distrust him (his smug contemptuous smirk plastered across his fake 'nice-guy' face doesn't help either! (ok that's the emotional stuff you don't want)).

Contador, Nibs etc., are slightly less egregious because of their pedigree, they showed exceptional ability very early. So in the cesspool that is pro-cycling, it wouldn't be quite as bad if they were winning, but it's only a matter of degrees. I don't see anyone here suggesting 'the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful' if they were winning. Just very slightly less ridiculous than it is with Badzilla-boy.

I see your point, thanks. I was just appealing to El Pistolero, as this little alleged 'slightly' you've mentioned engenders a really big difference between love and disdain.

let's put it straight, the thread is imbued with a sense of injustice over a thousand of pages. The whole thread keynote is cycling being so unfair due to team sky dominating it. For sure Froome is doped up to the eyeballs, but I'm absolutely sure the most active posters in the thread would tolerate any quality of doping for any rider just to enjoy froome (Sky) getting defeated. All of us realize how much doped up one gotta be to crack this version of Froome, still many people would handle Dawg's failure with a huge relief. That's just a pitch-dark irrationalism, however fans are willing to whitewash their hate, give it some rational motives. And that's something I don't really get.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.

Could you elaborate and call at least one reason why Contador, Nibali or any other cyclist should win the Tour and Froome should not on rational basis, not on emotional level you are constantly applying? Had AC / Aru / Nibali etc. been 1' ahead of Froome at the moment, and the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful... Typical double standarts on the go. The only Tour winner the thread truly deserves is C. Froome. End of.

I know you're not asking me...but it feels like your question possibly misses the point. We are all sick to death of seeing unreal performances. The more unreal it looks, the more sick we feel. Dawgy Dawg looks like the most egregious example of unreal performances many of us have ever seen. So we dislike and distrust him (his smug contemptuous smirk plastered across his fake 'nice-guy' face doesn't help either! (ok that's the emotional stuff you don't want)).

Contador, Nibs etc., are slightly less egregious because of their pedigree, they showed exceptional ability very early. So in the cesspool that is pro-cycling, it wouldn't be quite as bad if they were winning, but it's only a matter of degrees. I don't see anyone here suggesting 'the cycling world would've instantly been way more rightful' if they were winning. Just very slightly less ridiculous than it is with Badzilla-boy.

I see your point, thanks. I was just appealing to El Pistolero, as this little alleged 'slightly' you've mentioned engenders a really big difference between love and disdain.

let's put it straight, the thread is imbued with a sense of injustice over a thousand of pages. The whole thread keynote is cycling being so unfair due to team sky dominating it. For sure Froome is doped up to the eyeballs, but I'm absolutely sure the most active posters in the thread would tolerate any quality of doping for any rider just to enjoy froome (Sky) getting defeated. All of us realize how much doped up one gotta be to crack this version of Froome, still many people would handle Dawg's failure with a huge relief. That's just a pitch-dark irrationalism, however fans are willing to whitewash their hate, give it some rational motives. And that's something I don't really get.

Yeah, I'd fall into your description. I would tolerate Ricco levels of doping insanity just to see someone give Froome the most almighty kicking.

 

[Arrowfarm]

I dont like any one doper over another. I think they're all great athletes. I dislike sky because of their PR BS, magical gains and ztp nonsense. The other teams are generally keeping a lower profile and that's more to my liking. We know they're all doping, but only a few of them constantly lie to our faces. I dont like being lie to, especially when it's as obvious as Froome.

 

[King Of Molehill]

Re: Re:

Yeah, I'd fall into your description. I would tolerate Ricco levels of doping insanity just to see someone give Froome the most almighty kicking.

Reminded me of 2007 Rasmussen Vs. Contador. This is what we want! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMaPvrIxvyc

 

[argel]

Re: Re:

This is the classic sky fan lie. So easy to claim on the internet you doubted lance. Did you really? Highly unlikely.

At the time the popular attitude was that witnesses were not adequate evidence to believe a rider is doping. They could all have just been bitter and lying. You had to give the rider the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after USADA that people began to accept that witnesses do count as proof.

The people saying now that witnesses should count as proof, but ascent speeds, doping doctors on the team and insane transformations shouldn't, are highly unlikely in the extreme to have been doubting lance 10 years ago, when on the face of it there was nothing but a few upset losers making up stories to sell a book

Excuse me, but in a polite way, let me ask you just who the **** do you think you are? I don't care what you think of Froome or Sky or Lance, but calling me a liar just to support your point? Pathetic.

I have watched this sport through Indurain to Froome, and yes, when Ullrich, Virenque and Zulle went down, I knew the chances Lance weren't doping were so slim it was borderline impossible. Coupled with the fact that people were willing to speak out against him in the cycling community and even within his team, I was fully detached from his victories. I felt that the public deification of him was even more distasteful, and in fact turned me away from the sport during the end of his era.

Regardless, I do believe there are clear differences in the culture of cycling, the resources of Sky as a team in comparison to it's rivals, and the stakeholders at the top of team sky in comparison to USP who were already tainted anyway like Bruyneel.

Think about the people who would have had to make the decision to organise a fully fledged systemic doping operation - while simultaneously espousing the contrary message of anti-doping - at a point where within 6 months, Lance was under federal investigation. Even if for some bizarre reason, James Murdoch and Dave Brailsford thought that was worth taking the risk with their own and the SKY reputation, how could they get 6 months in and watch a man who was protected by the UCI be completely torn to shreds publicly and continue?

Nobody ever answers those questions, because inconveniently for those who are convicting Sky/Froome by their own standards of evidence, there is plenty of logical reasoning that suggests it would take a lot of incredibly needless and bizarre decisions to be made by people with a lot to lose in order to start, finance and then cover up such behaviour.

So, just double checking - your argument is:

"It's really, really, REALLY different THIS time guys, just trust me!"

Yeah?

I think that if you take an effort to comprehend the argument you will find more in it than that. It's not an argument that is unsupported by reason.

Favourite bit is that at the bottom of the prior post I said that the sceptics never want to answer the key question of 'why?'

I think in a way this forum (and this thread) suffers from such a pace that it's impossible to have a genuine debate where nuanced opinions are formed and discussed, or positions have shades of grey. I'm far from some Froome or sky fanboi, and yet here I am, and because I have said that I want a very basic burden of proof to be met, I'm now their biggest fan and I loved Lance

Still, not like the clinic to make leaps of imagination in order to reinforce their own position right?

 

[Arrowfarm]

why even pretend there is no reason for anyone to dope. It doesn't have to involve sponsors to be organized. To pretend this hasn't been covered here is trolling.

 

[tretiak]

If Russian athletes can get their doping samples green light , it is not difficult for Froome and company to get the same benefits.
Contacts and money the key to success.

 

[argel]

Re:

I dont like any one doper over another. I think they're all great athletes. I dislike sky because of their PR BS, magical gains and ztp nonsense. The other teams are generally keeping a lower profile and that's more to my liking. We know they're all doping, but only a few of them constantly lie to our faces. I dont like being lie to, especially when it's as obvious as Froome.

Just to ask though - assuming that they are, which I disagree with but for arguments sake.

How should they handle the questions about doping? Do you think other teams have a different way of handling things compared to Sky? Is it that they have a public anti-doping policy? Because everyone else does too...

“In accordance with the BMC Racing Team’s strict anti-doping policy, Ballan is no longer a member of the BMC Racing Team, said president/general manager Jim Ochowicz,” read a brief statement issued by BMC on Friday.

The reappointment of White in line with Vance's recommendation marks a departure for Orica-GreenEdge from its zero tolerance approach, which previously was similar to that operated by Team Sky

Tinkoff-Saxo team owner Oleg Tinkov says he has a policy of "zero tolerance to doping" in his cycling team.

Speaking from the Tinkoff-Saxo winter training camp in Gran Canaria, the Russian businessman stated his belief that "there is no organised doping" within the sport.

One feature of the range that is highlighted by Etixx is “the guarantee that every batch distributed is exempt from doping substances, or traces of doping substances”. That’s perhaps an important consideration given how often athletes claim contaminated supplements as mitigation when accused of doping. Etixx claims this is “unique in the world of sports nutrition.”

The company adds: “This means that Etixx is going far beyond official anti-doping bodies’ regulations and national anti-doping laws

MTN-Qhubeka have turned him down as they have a zero-tolerance doping policy and Riis admitted to taking drugs when he was a rider.

“For us it has not been possible to initiate a collaboration with Bjarne Riis. Our new sponsor has values that are not consistent with his history; Riis has previously doped. It was emphasized very clearly that it would not be feasible, and it was solely because of Riis,"

and so forth. I don't know what you expect SKY to say even if they were?

 

[argel]

Re:

why even pretend there is no reason for anyone to dope. It doesn't have to involve sponsors to be organized. To pretend this hasn't been covered here is trolling.

No, it's not. It's a genuine question that you don't seem to want to answer.

SKY aren't just 'sponsors', they are founders. James Murdoch conceived the entire team, so if they're doping, he'll ultimately be responsible. He and Brailsford will be ruined if they are for a long time.

 

[danielovichdk2]

This will be his 5th tour win.

in 2012 he would have won if not for wiggo.
in 2014 he would have won if not crashing out.

 

[Arrowfarm]

I fail to see your question as anything other than baiting What sky does differently has been covered a gazillion times. They boast of new discoveries when in fact they have found norging new. No other teams do that. They brag about their ztp and how clean they are, when in fact they have plenty of known dopers in their ranks. They boast and brag even when they are not asked about these thing. Other teams just answer when asked and keep a low profile at most other times. Done with that subject.

 

[simoni]

Re:

I fail to see your question as anything other than baiting What sky does differently has been covered a gazillion times. They boast of new discoveries when in fact they have found norging new. No other teams do that. They brag about their ztp and how clean they are, when in fact they have plenty of known dopers in their ranks. They boast and brag even when they are not asked about these thing. Other teams just answer when asked and keep a low profile at most other times. Done with that subject.

Maybe doping is still common, maybe its not. Either way, I doubt Sky are significantly different to anyone else in terms of how close to the rules they adhere.

What they do have is cash to get hold of the best "raw material" and better focus and clarity on tactics (probably because they pay domestiques more to keep them in line).

One thing is for sure - if the likes of Van Avermaet, Van Garderen or Valverde rode for Sky they'd either be in the train or not at the race at all (and this is no criticism of any of those riders specifically).

To me, talk of some special formula or special protection is fanciful. The answers are a lot more obvious and staring right at us.

 

[The Hitch]

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

I fail to see your question as anything other than baiting What sky does differently has been covered a gazillion times. They boast of new discoveries when in fact they have found norging new. No other teams do that. They brag about their ztp and how clean they are, when in fact they have plenty of known dopers in their ranks. They boast and brag even when they are not asked about these thing. Other teams just answer when asked and keep a low profile at most other times. Done with that subject.

Maybe doping is still common, maybe its not. Either way, I doubt Sky are significantly different to anyone else in terms of how close to the rules they adhere.

What they do have is cash to get hold of the best "raw material" and better focus and clarity on tactics (probably because they pay domestiques more to keep them in line).

One thing is for sure - if the likes of Van Avermaet, Van Garderen or Valverde rode for Sky they'd either be in the train or not at the race at all (and this is no criticism of any of those riders specifically).

To me, talk of some special formula or special protection is fanciful. The answers are a lot more obvious and staring right at us.

Why are you directing this at me? I haven't stated that I think sky are worse cheaters than the others. For the record, I don't. They're all cheating where ever they think they can gain an advatage. Those kinds of marginal gains are real.
Neither have I stated that I think they are protected or are doping in ways others aren't.
Sky are not worse cheaters. They lie more often than other teams and that's why I like them less than the other teams.

 

[argel]

I'm sure you are mate, but it sounds like BS when you try to deflect away from genuine questions that people seem reticent to cover. I'm sure you'd love to dismiss anyone asking inconvenient questions as 'trolling', but everyone here has a right to attack or defend positions, and I believe that the clinic sceptics avoid talking about the SKY setup because they know that the deeper they go, the harder it is to rationalise that they set this up as a massive doping operation without SKY and Brailsford's sporting reputations being destroyed by a whistleblower or advance in science, be it in 5, 10 or 20 years.

They don't have 'loads of known dopers' in their ranks. They have people you believe are dopers, and there, yet again, you expose the sceptic mindset even further. Once the spiral begins, even suspicions are treated as absolute truths, like the Landa thing where Walsh said he was sceptical about Astana ergo Landa was doping ergo SKY signed a known doper. Just again, a willingness to make leaps where no firm evidence exists, and once they're made, they're part of the 'Team Sky is doping' canon, to be used and recycled every time Froome wins a stage.

Boasting and bragging is subjective. I find it difficult to warm to Froome or SKY as a team, but again, I just don't know what else they could realistically do. Imagine if they came out and said 'no comment' every time someone mentioned doping. You know for a fact that people in here would leap on that as admission of guilt, so why pretend otherwise?

I hate that the clinic drives me to defend a repulsive company in SKY/Murdoch/News Corp but I can't just sit back and not challenge people on the paranoid ramblings on here.

 

[rick james]

Lol.

Just heard Froome's comment that because he attacked on the descent, it means he is clean

Lets get this straight. a 13 second gap won on a descent explains a 4 minute gap to 2nd place this year, as well as 2 other tdf wins

My god is he desperate

Nope he is just doing a very good job at trolling this forum

 

[gazr99]

This will be his 5th tour win.

in 2012 he would have won if not for wiggo.
in 2014 he would have won if not crashing out.

Do a love if's and but's theory, if I was fitter and quicker at riding a bike i would be on a WT team :lol: