Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[DFA123]

Re:

I'm getting tempted by the dark-side (detached cynicism, not dewy-eyed hero worship) thanks to all these over-the-top Froome takes. He's sharing the podium with a guy who had an even bigger transformation than he did (at least Froome actually lost some weight), and a guy racing on Alexander Nikolayevich's team. I mean, I like both of those guys, and I'd much rather any of them have won, even given their comparatively passive racing, but this is pro cycling.

Yeah, he got popped for Salbutamol. Yeah, he shouldn't be racing. But Contador fans being apoplectic about a guy achieving incredible feats while under investigation is truly something else. I can't stop myself from laughing.

Yep, this is a 100% where I am. The attempts to paint one guy, whoever it is, as the ultimate villain is a narrative that has never existed in cycling, and certainly isn't the case now.

Of course Froome is ludicrously suspicious and Sky are an intensely unlikeable team. But they are far from alone from that in cycling, and not everything he or they do or say is automatically incorrect or is the direct result of some kind of transgression. It's OK to acknowledge that Froome has some admirable traits and qualities, as well as being a doper. Making him out to be a one-dimensional cartoon type character is pretty pathetic.

And like you said seeing Contador fanboys and girls so apoplectic about Froome, and their subsequent justifications for the hypocrisy, is cringeworthy.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Quintana and Nibali riding into form was basically going from being average at the start to great in the 3rd week

Froome went from being the worst he's been in a GT in 8 years, crashing, to the best performance he's ever done.

Doesn't riding into form mean not starting at peak? It can work if you have a quiet(ish) first week but I think the point York makes is it doesn't work if you're starting in recovery mode.

Yates seems to have peaked too soon, no? A good performance for a two week race, but not three.

yates blew...he didn't just lose form...a great GC rider not on top form is still good...Yates probably couldn't have done anything else other than ride more conservatively earlier in the race...but then he wouldn't have been in pink and we probably would be talking about him other than for his solid top 10 performance

 

[thehog]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

I'm getting tempted by the dark-side (detached cynicism, not dewy-eyed hero worship) thanks to all these over-the-top Froome takes. He's sharing the podium with a guy who had an even bigger transformation than he did (at least Froome actually lost some weight), and a guy racing on Alexander Nikolayevich's team. I mean, I like both of those guys, and I'd much rather any of them have won, even given their comparatively passive racing, but this is pro cycling.

Yeah, he got popped for Salbutamol. Yeah, he shouldn't be racing. But Contador fans being apoplectic about a guy achieving incredible feats while under investigation is truly something else. I can't stop myself from laughing.

Yep, this is a 100% where I am. The attempts to paint one guy, whoever it is, as the ultimate villain is a narrative that has never existed in cycling, and certainly isn't the case now.

Of course Froome is ludicrously suspicious and Sky are an intensely unlikeable team. But they are far from alone from that in cycling, and not everything he or they do or say is automatically incorrect or is the direct result of some kind of transgression. It's OK to acknowledge that Froome has some admirable traits and qualities, as well as being a doper. Making him out to be a one-dimensional cartoon type character is pretty pathetic.

And like you said seeing Contador fanboys and girls so apoplectic about Froome, and their subsequent justifications for the hypocrisy, is cringeworthy.

its cycling fans that don't like Froome...and they don't like Froome because he gave it a go for 6 years and was crap....and then............

besides, attempts to paint one guy as the ultimate villain has never existed?????? I would say two words but you should only need one......Lance

 

[Winterfold]

Re: Re:

I've let everything settle for a day or two. Now I just have to say:

What Froome did in the Giro was Absolute Full ***, Universal Mutant, Immutable Alien. Insane, ridiculous, unbelievable. It was proper 90's/00's stuff.

Not the slightest shred of reason or evidence is needed - it was ontological.

It's the clinic way after all

Normally I'm happy to deploy reason. But sometimes, the truth manifests itself in the very appearance of reality - nakedly, and prior even to thought.

In this case, one just watches the stage, and what is so, is so.

Amen

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

all those funny bones

 

[bigcog]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating

ES stated he gained over a minute, actually think they stated 1.40 on the descents or half the time gained, the following day on stage 20. Wonder where they got that figure from.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

 

[bigcog]

Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

 

[thehog]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating

ES stated he gained over a minute, actually think they stated 1.40 on the descents or half the time gained, the following day on stage 20. Wonder where they got that figure from.

There’s only one person I trust and he sat down with the replay, and put a km by km time gain / loss on his blog. That’s where these figures come from. Not the BikeRadar / Carlton Kirby fan club

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I'm getting tempted by the dark-side (detached cynicism, not dewy-eyed hero worship) thanks to all these over-the-top Froome takes. He's sharing the podium with a guy who had an even bigger transformation than he did (at least Froome actually lost some weight), and a guy racing on Alexander Nikolayevich's team. I mean, I like both of those guys, and I'd much rather any of them have won, even given their comparatively passive racing, but this is pro cycling.

Yeah, he got popped for Salbutamol. Yeah, he shouldn't be racing. But Contador fans being apoplectic about a guy achieving incredible feats while under investigation is truly something else. I can't stop myself from laughing.

Yep, this is a 100% where I am. The attempts to paint one guy, whoever it is, as the ultimate villain is a narrative that has never existed in cycling, and certainly isn't the case now.

Of course Froome is ludicrously suspicious and Sky are an intensely unlikeable team. But they are far from alone from that in cycling, and not everything he or they do or say is automatically incorrect or is the direct result of some kind of transgression. It's OK to acknowledge that Froome has some admirable traits and qualities, as well as being a doper. Making him out to be a one-dimensional cartoon type character is pretty pathetic.

And like you said seeing Contador fanboys and girls so apoplectic about Froome, and their subsequent justifications for the hypocrisy, is cringeworthy.

its cycling fans that don't like Froome...and they don't like Froome because he gave it a go for 6 years and was crap....and then............

besides, attempts to paint one guy as the ultimate villain has never existed?????? I would say two words but you should only need one......Lance

You've missed the point. It's not about liking or disliking Froome - it's about not analysing every word he says and every thing he does and trying to turn into a doping angle. If you don't like him because he once wasn't very good and now he is, that's up to you. I understand you - I feel the same to an extent, but the vitriol is becoming way over the top.

The constant analysis of photos, statements, interviews, cadence, gear shifts, changing of saddles, bike x-rays... basically anything the guy does - and trying to turn all of it into evidence against him and his character, is pathetic. Ultimately, he's probably doping to win - just like pretty much everyone else at the sharp end of World Tour bike races. And he was a late comer to the party. He's not an ultimate villain.

And neither was Lance. Sure, Lance was a massively unpleasant ***. But doping didn't start or end with him.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

Who may well also have told Froome. Who then said it as a throwaway line in an interview, which is now being used by some to assassinate his character.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

Who may well also have told Froome. Who then said it as a throwaway line in an interview, which is now being used by some to assassinate his character.

Lol! That’s some theory you’ve got going there...

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

Who may well also have told Froome. Who then said it as a throwaway line in an interview, which is now being used by some to assassinate his character.

Lol! That’s some theory you’ve got going there...

Yep, as you know, it's pretty easy to take something, put some kind of spin on it and come up with whatever conclusion you like.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

Who may well also have told Froome. Who then said it as a throwaway line in an interview, which is now being used by some to assassinate his character.

Lol! That’s some theory you’ve got going there...

Yep, as you know, it's pretty easy to take something, put some kind of spin on it and come up with whatever conclusion you like.

Or you can read what he said and determine that he actually broke down the ride and still made up a lie... It’s that simple

Apparently it’s “uneducated” according to Froome, he sounds very certain

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Yep, as you know, it's pretty easy to take something, put some kind of spin on it and come up with whatever conclusion you like.

Or you can read what he said and determine that he actually broke down the ride and still made up a lie... It’s that simple

No. Since you're so fond of semantics, I have to pick you up on this. It doesn't say that 'he broke down the ride', the quote actually says "if you break down what [that ride] looks like". Which is a pretty neutral statement and doesn't give any indication as to whether he did it or someone just told him about it.

So a) we don't know if he "made up a lie" or just passed on what he heard in good faith. And b) we don't even know if it is a lie because there is conflicting information.

A little be more balance please in your future posts.

 

[thehog]

So, according to you, Brian Smith incorrectly told him he gained time on the descents, Froome despite having his own data to hand, took this statement from Smith, repeated to journalists and then said anyone who hasn’t taken the time to break it down is “uneducated”.

That’s what you want us to believe? (speaking of uneducated)

 

[Puckfiend]

I like succinct, sparse commentary! Kind of sums it up rather nicely:

https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1001119399946932224

 

[DFA123]

So, according to you, Brian Smith incorrectly told him he gained time on the descents, Froome despite having his own data to hand, took this statement from Smith, repeated to journalists and then said anyone who hasn’t taken the time to break it down is “uneducated”.

That’s what you want us to believe? (speaking of uneducated)

No, of course I don't know any of that, and I don't want you to believe it. That was just an example to show how you can take a couple of things you have heard and make up a narrative that sounds plausible, but is actually based on nothing. Which is what is happening all the time in this Froome thread recently imo.

Creating these heavily biased narratives based on what other riders do or don't say, photos without context, off the cuff interview remarks or whatever else, adds nothing to the debate about whether or not Froome is doping. It's just character assassination without any substance backing it up.

 

[brownbobby]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating

ES stated he gained over a minute, actually think they stated 1.40 on the descents or half the time gained, the following day on stage 20. Wonder where they got that figure from.[/quo
There’s only one person I trust and he sat down with the replay, and put a km by km time gain / loss on his blog. That’s where these figures come from. Not the BikeRadar / Carlton Kirby fan club

And maybe when Froome made his statement he hadn’t sat down and studied the timings km by km. Maybe he’d got better things to do....how foolish of him, not realising that every single syllable of every word he ever says will be studied and eventually spun to illustrate the fact that he’s the most reprehensible creature ever to walk the earth, let alone ride a bike

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

tit for tat aient it?

Are people here really arguing where Froome robot took time? He took it every where. A bit more ascending then descending but whats the point?

Do you not have eyes?

 

[Koronin]

Feels like BikeRadar here at times, you have to dumb everything down...

Been seeing this a lot. First, it’s not true. It was 49% on climbs, 29% on descents, 22% on flats. Second, it means working (hard) the whole time, no respite, no shelter, & still taking time. If anything, the numbers make the performance MORE remarkable. They’re not mitigating

ES stated he gained over a minute, actually think they stated 1.40 on the descents or half the time gained, the following day on stage 20. Wonder where they got that figure from.[/quo
There’s only one person I trust and he sat down with the replay, and put a km by km time gain / loss on his blog. That’s where these figures come from. Not the BikeRadar / Carlton Kirby fan club

And maybe when Froome made his statement he hadn’t sat down and studied the timings km by km. Maybe he’d got better things to do....how foolish of him, not realising that every single syllable of every word he ever says will be studied and eventually spun to illustrate the fact that he’s the most reprehensible creature ever to walk the earth, let alone ride a bike

To me that proves that a larger portion of the time gains were on the climbs. I would include a false flat as technically climbing.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Carlton is great at maths bigcog. ..

It was Brian Smith.

tit for tat aient it?

Are people here really arguing where Froome robot took time? He took it every where. A bit more ascending then descending but whats the point?

Do you not have eyes?

That wasn't my point, it was how accurate were these figures that were being bandied about were and that's all.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

[quote="bigcog

That wasn't my point, it was how accurate were these figures that were being bandied about were and that's all.

fair enough

I really am not gonna watch that - incredible, Yes I Loved it - stage again and time the difference. Froomey had 42 seconde on top of Finestre and around 1.40 minutes entering the valley. The rest was false piano in head wind, ascending in head wind, a short downhill and then on the Jafferau. That's 1.40 minutes extra isnt it?

 

[Saint Unix]

And maybe when Froome made his statement he hadn’t sat down and studied the timings km by km. Maybe he’d got better things to do....how foolish of him, not realising that every single syllable of every word he ever says will be studied and eventually spun to illustrate the fact that he’s the most reprehensible creature ever to walk the earth, let alone ride a bike

You don't find it a little hypocritical and reprehensible that Froome goes out and bashes sceptics by calling them "uneducated Twitter trolls" when the sceptics are in the right and have all the evidence to prove it? Turns out it was Froome who was "uneducated" about his own ride all along.