Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.

you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....

Google wasnt my choice, but it was used by others to try and illustrate a point. I'm not confused but maybe i'm confusing others :lol:

The original debate was around a statement of no potential, which in the context of what we now know was a historical assumption, not a future forecast. Retrospect is the only absolute proof or disproof of historical assumptions. Therefore retrospect is being correctly and justifiably applied here.

This is becoming a circular argument with no likelihood of any meaningful conclusion.

Shall we move on :Neutral:

we could ...but for some of us time has indeed stood still...because we lived with (or actually more descriptively without, so absent was he from results) the froome with no potential...indeed i have lived with him since 2006 when he raced against my mtb peers at the commie games (again, funnily enough, showing no potential - think he got lapped :surprised: ).....no bell curve for our hapless hero...quite literally from zero to hero.........

 

[miguelindurain111]

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.

So there are no non-doping multiple tour winners ?

 

[rick james]

No one wins clean.......apparently

 

[thehog]

Re:

No one wins clean.......apparently

Didn’t you read Inside Sky by David Walsh? Single handily Dave Brailsford and his charges cleaned up the sport and won!

 

[silvergrenade]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.

Not necessarily. I would argue that on bread and water even the most talented cannot be good. That is what is proven.
Bad Nutrition and lack of medical advice(Or an anti-doping stance at all costs) can make the best cyclist look just an average pro in a peloton doped to its gills. That is what is proven.

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

If you disagree with silvergrenade you are saying that Chris's ability to respond isn't natural. Which drugs make you a good responder? And which drugs make you a good responder to drugs which make you a good responder? :lol:

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Maybe your "peers" were doped to the gills and had no room to improve unlike our hero Chris the King :lol:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.

So there are no non-doping multiple tour winners ?

Let’s see. Multiple TDF winners post war and their shenanigans:

Contador: clen positive (and plasticisers in said sample) 2010
Armstrong...
Indurain: salbutamol positive 1994, Conconi also worked with Banesto
Hinault: Refused to give a sample in 82
Fignon: stimulants and steroids (self confessed)
Thévenet: cortisone (self confessed)
Merckx: multiple stimulant positives - 69,73, 75, 77
Anquetil: stimulants, morphine, cortisone (self confessed)
Bobet: regularly took “unknown substances” provided by DS Raymond le Bert (self confessed)
Coppi: stimulants (self confessed)

This leaves Greg Lemond and that iron shot (which has been debated ad nauseum - but not here) and Badzhilla Boy...

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

to the above.........

........and lets look at Lemond and Froome's first 4 years of being a pro's palmares to try and tease out that GT winning potential....

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.[/quote]
Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.[/quote]

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.[/quote]

So there are no non-doping multiple tour winners ?[/quote]
Let’s see. Multiple TDF winners post war and their shenanigans:

Contador: clen positive (and plasticisers in said sample) 2010
Armstrong...
Indurain: salbutamol positive 1994, Conconi also worked with Banesto
Hinault: Refused to give a sample in 82
Fignon: stimulants and steroids (self confessed)
Thévenet: cortisone (self confessed)
Merckx: multiple stimulant positives - 69,73, 75, 77
Anquetil: stimulants, morphine, cortisone (self confessed)
Bobet: regularly took “unknown substances” provided by DS Raymond le Bert (self confessed)
Coppi: stimulants (self confessed)

This leaves Greg Lemond and that iron shot (which has been debated ad nauseum - but not here) and Badzhilla Boy...[/quote]
You forgot Van Impe

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

You forgot Van Impe

No, he didn't.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.[/quote]
Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.[/quote]

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.[/quote]

So there are no non-doping multiple tour winners ?[/quote]
Let’s see. Multiple TDF winners post war and their shenanigans:

Contador: clen positive (and plasticisers in said sample) 2010
Armstrong...
Indurain: salbutamol positive 1994, Conconi also worked with Banesto
Hinault: Refused to give a sample in 82
Fignon: stimulants and steroids (self confessed)
Thévenet: cortisone (self confessed)
Merckx: multiple stimulant positives - 69,73, 75, 77
Anquetil: stimulants, morphine, cortisone (self confessed)
Bobet: regularly took “unknown substances” provided by DS Raymond le Bert (self confessed)
Coppi: stimulants (self confessed)

This leaves Greg Lemond and that iron shot (which has been debated ad nauseum - but not here) and Badzhilla Boy...[/quote]

I suppose the possible counter argument to this is that all of the past winners you list were competing against other riders who were almost certain, perhaps even proven in most cases, to be doping also.

So in theory, IF, and i accept that this is a huge IF (and not one i buy into) you were to buy into the claims from some quarters that cycling is much cleaner these days, then i suppose you could also buy into the thoery that it is now possible to win multiple tours clean

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

You forgot Van Impe

No, he didn't.

That’s right. BigCog’s question was regarding Multiple TDF winners.

Anywho - Van Impe skipped a control in 81 after the Acht van Chaam.

http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?identifier=ddd:010377615:mpeg21:a0104&coll=ddd

De Waarheid, 12/08/1981

Oops.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

...once he started doping showed his real potential as the perfect responder.

Okay. So?
I would argue that being the best/top 5 responders in the peloton, (which obviously is part of their natural talents) is how multiple Tours de France are won.[/quote]

If Froome had GT winning natural talent, Sky would have not tried to get rid of him and it would have shown itself at Konica or Barloworld.

Multiple tours are won by dopers. That is proven.[/quote]

So there are no non-doping multiple tour winners ?[/quote]
Let’s see. Multiple TDF winners post war and their shenanigans:

Contador: clen positive (and plasticisers in said sample) 2010
Armstrong...
Indurain: salbutamol positive 1994, Conconi also worked with Banesto
Hinault: Refused to give a sample in 82
Fignon: stimulants and steroids (self confessed)
Thévenet: cortisone (self confessed)
Merckx: multiple stimulant positives - 69,73, 75, 77
Anquetil: stimulants, morphine, cortisone (self confessed)
Bobet: regularly took “unknown substances” provided by DS Raymond le Bert (self confessed)
Coppi: stimulants (self confessed)

This leaves Greg Lemond and that iron shot (which has been debated ad nauseum - but not here) and Badzhilla Boy...[/quote]

I suppose the possible counter argument to this is that all of the past winners you list were competing against other riders who were almost certain, perhaps even proven in most cases, to be doping also.

So in theory, IF, and i accept that this is a huge IF (and not one i buy into) you were to buy into the claims from some quarters that cycling is much cleaner these days, then i suppose you could also buy into the thoery that it is now possible to win multiple tours clean[/quote]

yes, in theory...and for that to happen you wouldn't be seeing the climbing times that....ah....damn...there goes that theory

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

a decent model

4 years in the pro peleton...you might call that more than decent

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Uh huh. He went from zero to hero in less than three weeks with >10% increase in FTP according to the actual, real world results, statistically significant to p << 0.001. So the half life is approximately three weeks, I guess? The only thing left is to explain *how* the change was accomplished.

He had no potential. All the way up to mid 2011, he exhibited results that indicated he had gone to the limits of his capabilities. I.e., no potential - by definition.

John Swanson

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Uh huh. He went from zero to hero in less than three weeks with >10% increase in FTP according to the actual, real world results, statistically significant to p << 0.001. So the half life is approximately three weeks, I guess? The only thing left is to explain *how* the change was accomplished.

He had no potential. All the way up to mid 2011, he exhibited results that indicated he had gone to the limits of his capabilities. I.e., no potential - by definition.

John Swanson

....you've fallen into the trap of forgetting about the anatomic jock race

sorry...can't get enough of it

 

[ColonelKidneyBeans]

Re: Re:

You forgot Van Impe

No, he didn't.

I shouldn't post when i'm not completely awake, didn't catch the multiple tout winner reference, my bad.

You forgot Van Impe

No, he didn't.

That’s right. BigCog’s question was regarding Multiple TDF winners.

Anywho - Van Impe skipped a control in 81 after the Acht van Chaam.

http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?identifier=ddd:010377615:mpeg21:a0104&coll=ddd

De Waarheid, 12/08/1981

Oops.

I didn't imply that van impe was clean, didn't know about the skipped test tough, thanks

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Uh huh. He went from zero to hero in less than three weeks with >10% increase in FTP according to the actual, real world results, statistically significant to p << 0.001. So the half life is approximately three weeks, I guess? The only thing left is to explain *how* the change was accomplished.

He had no potential. All the way up to mid 2011, he exhibited results that indicated he had gone to the limits of his capabilities. I.e., no potential - by definition.

John Swanson

Blinded by weak science, LOL.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

For goodness sake, how long is this particular debate about potential going to rumble on.

From the day Chris Froome was born, he had the potential (capacity) to win at least 4 TDF's and one Vuelta. This is a fact now proven by history.

We can debate until the end of time about if/why he never showed that potential until 2011, and what means he employed to fulfil the potential eg, even if we assume he took every doping product known to man, had a 500cc motor in his bike and paid off all the authorities to cover up every test he ever failed, he still had the capacity (capacity equals potential) to stoop to such levels.

You cannot deny history, and you cannot say someone never had the potential to achieve what they have now gone on to achieve.