• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 969 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Bag_O_Wallet said:
thehog said:
papisimo98 said:
Bag_O_Wallet said:

It is hard to judge the grade of the hill or if there is any slope at that point.
But the man with his arm around his left side hardly seems to be pushing as the bike does seems to accelerate without a pedal stroke.

Use this link: https://youtu.be/CylFWy-HwDk?t=31m50s

Does look odd but can't see him using a motor at the stage end unless it purely by habit. It does look strange though.

The Sky swanny seems to accelerate rapidly as well... while toting two bags, and a water bottle in hand.

Good spot. Nothing about Froome adds up. He has one foot off the pedal and bike sitll moves.

on ventoux, the bike moved a few hundred yards even whilst our hapless hero wasn't even on it :)

its a kind of magic.....
 
Re: Re:

Huapango said:
Jimsnchz said:
Pricey_sky said:
I think it is a downhill gradient, just before the Froome clip you see riders who have finished freewheeling back to the finish line only to brake sharply. Also the Cannondale rider that goes past as it pans to Froome appears to speed up without peddling too.
Yup others are going by and not pedaling. Doggy pulled it off from a dead stop.

He seems to accelerate a few times after the finish. Well, riding with a motor is a lot healthier than pumping oneself full of PEDs. Smart man.
He doesn't look terribly healthy
 
Re:

Pricey_sky said:
I think it is a downhill gradient, just before the Froome clip you see riders who have finished freewheeling back to the finish line only to brake sharply. Also the Cannondale rider that goes past as it pans to Froome appears to speed up without peddling too.

the cannondale rider was approaching at speed anyway....Froome was at A COMPLETE STANDSTILL he didnt pedal the bike just took off itself and at some speed.

https://twitter.com/maximus_hoggus/status/903710185868455936

F the Hypocrisy has posted about it
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
samhocking said:
I think the point is, the long post has the bias it's perhaps better to not lie like sky, but maintain omerta as would be traditional. See Nibali for example of trying to do both at the same time lol! It really doesn't matter what a teams public method is of avoiding saying they are doping in order to win when there is only the option of omerta or the option of lying. Doping is a legal matter, not an ethical one and this is what gives the post bias against Sky I feel.

How are legal matters not ethical?

That's not what I said is it. I said 'doping' is not a legal matter, not legal matters are not ethical.
In simple words, you need to be caught doping and it needs to legally be proven to be banned.
 
Re: Re:

pmcg76 said:
samhocking said:
I think the point is, the long post has the bias it's perhaps better to not lie like sky, but maintain omerta as would be traditional. See Nibali for example of trying to do both at the same time lol! It really doesn't matter what a teams public method is of avoiding saying they are doping in order to win when there is only the option of omerta or the option of lying. Doping is a legal matter, not an ethical one and this is what gives the post bias against Sky I feel.

I dont really see any real bias at all. I see a well laid out explanation of why SKY are so disliked in comparison to other teams. LS clearly explains reasons why teams/riders may be disliked on different levels, not just doping related. However it is really only SKY that seems to tick most of the boxes for being disliked which I would agree with wholeheartedly. For example, many on here would say SKY/Cannondale tick a lot of the same boxes in terms of PR stuff, but I would say SKY are far more hated than Cannondale. Why? Most people can work out the why, but some still seem to be in denial.

Agreed, but the bias in inferred that teams and riders maintaining omerta are the preferred way for teams and riders to behave and fans prefer that? I really can't see much difference, both are as bad as each other ethically.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
qwerty16 said:
samhocking said:
Libertine Seguros said:
<<<<<<snipped for brevity a great post>>>>>>.

What I get from this, is in you opinion, it is better for teams and riders to maintain omerta and say nothing about success and how it comes about, than to lie it is done clean and by hard work? I would say perhaps both are just as bad for the sport and as twisted as each other though. So far (by that I mean so far in a legal evidence sense) there is no doping with Sky's 'lies', but continual doping with teams not saying how they won? I would ask what is better? Omerta so you don't have to lie or lies so you don't have to maintain Omerta?


Also guys that did actually get caught and are still denying everything get cheered on big time. Double standards much?

The long post has an anti Sky-bias dripping through every single paragraph. But hey, Sky are the bad guys among Contador, Valverde et al, so everbody is applauding the post.

The Contador, Valverde et al don't having fans screaming from the roof tops about being clean due to marginal gains BS or train harder or other BS. It is you who claims an anti sky basis on the team being supposedly British. It aint British. Last time i looked Murdoch was an American born in Australia. Most of the riders are non British. Froome is Kenyan. Wiggins was born in Belgium. so puhleeeaseee get off the nationalist jingoism and sky moaning.

Re Samhocking. You at this stage should know better to continue posting that kind of stuff. Accusing Libertine of omertà is way out of order, WAY OUT OF ORDER!!!

I haven't accused her of anything. I've said there is bias because the comparison to Sky's 'lies' is simply other teams 'omerta' and challenged her on what is the preferred choice because to my ethics, both are equally as bad as each other and so challenge this is biased. She's welcome to answer.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti69 said:
qwerty16 said:
samhocking said:
Libertine Seguros said:
<<<<<<snipped for brevity a great post>>>>>>.

What I get from this, is in you opinion, it is better for teams and riders to maintain omerta and say nothing about success and how it comes about, than to lie it is done clean and by hard work? I would say perhaps both are just as bad for the sport and as twisted as each other though. So far (by that I mean so far in a legal evidence sense) there is no doping with Sky's 'lies', but continual doping with teams not saying how they won? I would ask what is better? Omerta so you don't have to lie or lies so you don't have to maintain Omerta?


Also guys that did actually get caught and are still denying everything get cheered on big time. Double standards much?

The long post has an anti Sky-bias dripping through every single paragraph. But hey, Sky are the bad guys among Contador, Valverde et al, so everbody is applauding the post.

The Contador, Valverde et al don't having fans screaming from the roof tops about being clean due to marginal gains BS or train harder or other BS. It is you who claims an anti sky basis on the team being supposedly British. It aint British. Last time i looked Murdoch was an American born in Australia. Most of the riders are non British. Froome is Kenyan. Wiggins was born in Belgium. so puhleeeaseee get off the nationalist jingoism and sky moaning.

Re Samhocking. You at this stage should know better to continue posting that kind of stuff. Accusing Libertine of omertà is way out of order, WAY OUT OF ORDER!!!

I haven't accused her of anything. I've said there is bias because the comparison to Sky's 'lies' is simply other teams 'omerta' and challenged her on what is the preferred choice because to my ethics, both are equally as bad as each other and so challenge this is biased. She's welcome to answer.

Telling outright lies to fans and having them believe that you are clean is way worse than the way other teams have always discussed performances. I don't think the fans of other teams believe their riders are clean, they just ignore or accept the culture of doping. Sky fans think their riders are saints. Big difference. LibertySegurous's post does not promote omertà.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Visit site
Look at the way Froome came back today in the last 4km. People have called it faking. But why is he so confident that he will bridge up?? He seems at the limit, but he has something extra...yes, a motor....I remember TylerH said he always felt LA had something extra...
 
Re:

jilbiker said:
Look at the way Froome came back today in the last 4km. People have called it faking. But why is he so confident that he will bridge up?? He seems at the limit, but he has something extra...yes, a motor....I remember TylerH said he always felt LA had something extra...

He simply knows how much power he need to put to bridge. If he knows his watts are where they should be there is no need to panic. He don't need to respond right away to early attacks because he knows his rivals are unable to put more w/kg on average than him and it is almost sure thing he'll catch them. He also knows that accelerations are physiologically ineffective and it's better to keep power steady and sub threshold for most of the time. The only time he absolutely needs to respond right away to attacks are last 1-2kms of the steep climb because there might be no time to do steady chasing. This whole yo-yo thing is just Froome riding painfully effective on contrary to the most of the rivals.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
aphronesis said:
samhocking said:
I think the point is, the long post has the bias it's perhaps better to not lie like sky, but maintain omerta as would be traditional. See Nibali for example of trying to do both at the same time lol! It really doesn't matter what a teams public method is of avoiding saying they are doping in order to win when there is only the option of omerta or the option of lying. Doping is a legal matter, not an ethical one and this is what gives the post bias against Sky I feel.

How are legal matters not ethical?

That's not what I said is it. I said 'doping' is not a legal matter, not legal matters are not ethical.
In simple words, you need to be caught doping and it needs to legally be proven to be banned.

It's exactly what you said. It's right there in the quote. Conveniently ethics have dropped out of your response.

Perhaps it's not what you meant to say?
 
Re: Re:

He simply knows how much power he need to put to bridge. If he knows his watts are where they should be there is no need to panic. He don't need to respond right away to early attacks because he knows his rivals are unable to put more w/kg on average than him and it is almost sure thing he'll catch them. He also knows that accelerations are physiologically ineffective and it's better to keep power steady and sub threshold for most of the time. The only time he absolutely needs to respond right away to attacks are last 1-2kms of the steep climb because there might be no time to do steady chasing. This whole yo-yo thing is just Froome riding painfully effective on contrary to the most of the rivals.

Froome knows that he can catch any of the riders in the race at any given time. He's just doing his part creating the perceived drama so announcers and fans can get excited when a rider breaks away for a few minutes, while Froome just trudges along with his heartrate barely breaking double-digits. If he were going full gas, he'd be leading by several minutes, but there's no need for that.
 
Jimsnchz said:
Finished watching Stage 12 on Olympic TV broadcast. After the finish Froome is talking to another Sky teammate. Right shoe unclipped, left leg straight. His handler has an arm around his waist. I might be overly exhausted but it looks like the bike starts moving without the cranks moving. Looks strange to the eye. It's at the 1:45 minute of their 2 hour broadcast.

JIMSNCHZ - I just want to give you some kudos because you spotted this footage. WELL DONE GREAT SPOT !!

Hopefully you just found Froomes 'hospital room incident'
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Arked said:
jilbiker said:
Look at the way Froome came back today in the last 4km. People have called it faking. But why is he so confident that he will bridge up?? He seems at the limit, but he has something extra...yes, a motor....I remember TylerH said he always felt LA had something extra...

He simply knows how much power he need to put to bridge. If he knows his watts are where they should be there is no need to panic. He don't need to respond right away to early attacks because he knows his rivals are unable to put more w/kg on average than him and it is almost sure thing he'll catch them. He also knows that accelerations are physiologically ineffective and it's better to keep power steady and sub threshold for most of the time. The only time he absolutely needs to respond right away to attacks are last 1-2kms of the steep climb because there might be no time to do steady chasing. This whole yo-yo thing is just Froome riding painfully effective on contrary to the most of the rivals.

You make Froome sound like a mathematical and biking genius, kind of like what was branded about Lance and explaining how he was so dominant for 7 years. Not buying it especially in cycling, that one has it all figured out each time
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

jilbiker said:
Arked said:
jilbiker said:
Look at the way Froome came back today in the last 4km. People have called it faking. But why is he so confident that he will bridge up?? He seems at the limit, but he has something extra...yes, a motor....I remember TylerH said he always felt LA had something extra...

He simply knows how much power he need to put to bridge. If he knows his watts are where they should be there is no need to panic. He don't need to respond right away to early attacks because he knows his rivals are unable to put more w/kg on average than him and it is almost sure thing he'll catch them. He also knows that accelerations are physiologically ineffective and it's better to keep power steady and sub threshold for most of the time. The only time he absolutely needs to respond right away to attacks are last 1-2kms of the steep climb because there might be no time to do steady chasing. This whole yo-yo thing is just Froome riding painfully effective on contrary to the most of the rivals.

You make Froome sound like a mathematical and biking genius, kind of like what was branded about Lance and explaining how he was so dominant for 7 years. Not buying it especially in cycling, that one has it all figured out each time

:lol: You don't need to be genius to read powermeter. Even I can do it :lol:
 

TRENDING THREADS