• 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 1339 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

86TDFWinner said:
Singer01 said:
I'm so embarrassed by some of the loons on this forum right now.

MANY here were called "loons", "FOS", "haters" etc. When anyone dare question Cancer Jesus/Wonderboy on whether or not he "doped", infact, they lopped it up like a thirsty dog, bought into his " I've been tested 967 times, more than any other athlete in the world" nonsense too, how'd that turn out?

The armstrong loons and haters were asking valid question just as its very very valid to question a lot of what sky/ineos/froome have got up to from the PED/performance point of view.

Questioning whether a serious injury has been faked or not is ridiculous though as there is no rational motive (even trying to put yourself in Brailsford's unpleasant mind) and there are independent witnesses. My favourite is the guy who wants an easily fakeable z-ray or picture to give him proof of the story. I can send him an x-ray of my broken elbow with "Chris Froome" and "St Etienne" photoshopped on if it helps?!
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Yes, I think I'd read he was going to be in hospital for weeks.

I really think this is it for him in terms of big wins. He's clearly a determined person but I cant see Ineos building the team around him next summer or the one after, by which time he will be 36.

It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
Do you mean as just another doper that didn't get caught?
 
Re:

macbindle said:
It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
He is one of only 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours. His name would already be in the history books regardless. I don't think he would have got leadership over Wiggins in 2012, in fact, had Cobo not been there in the Vuelta Wiggins would probably have won it because the team would have subordinated the complete unknown Froome to a much more known quantity in Wiggins, who had at least some pedigree in difficult stage races with his (then) 4th at the 2009 Tour, 3rd at Paris-Nice and win at the Dauphiné, and after Froome ceded the lead to Wiggins on La Manzaneda they'd have been wary of him cracking again (because his form was a complete unknown, having not completed a grand tour for two and a half years).

I mean, as long as we're being conjectural, if he hadn't had the positive test at the 2017 Vuelta, he'd probably not have that position as one of the 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours, because he wouldn't have gone to the Giro in 2018... but then he would perhaps more likely have won a 5th Tour de France because he wouldn't have been going there racing both back to back.

But regardless of what happens, Chris Froome has a place in the record books. A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

I don't think Froome will ever be loved or lionised in the same way as, say, Coppi and Bartali were; I don't think - unless something terrible happens, which I hope it doesn't - he will be romanticised and his flaws airbrushed away like we've seen with Simpson or Pantani; his personality (and more so Brailsford's) doesn't lend itself to the kind of mythologizing we've seen around Indurain. There are perhaps fewer fantastical exploits that fans will regale younger viewers with in generations to come than his peers who've won all 3 GTs (Contador and Nibali)... but he does at least have one - Jafferau (this was something that was perhaps missing from the jigsaw of his place in history - a signature ride that would hallmark his career; until then things like Peña Cabarga and Pierre Saint-Martin were the best we could point to - but with the Bardonecchia raid, even though from many quarters it was greeted with derision and as a great big FU to fair play, his supporters finally had that signature moment that they can point to in the same way, say, Contador's supporters point at Fuente Dé). Chris Froome may never fully succeed in convincing the entire fanbase that he deserves a seat at the pantheon of the legends of the sport, but to deny he has long since earnt himself a place in the history books is crazy.
 
A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

That is one hell of a sentence
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
macbindle said:
It's been a tough month for him. Hes learned that he might be retrospectively declared winner of the '11 Vuelta...which if he had won at the time may have put him as leader of team in '12 TdF, which he would probably have won.. .giving him 5 TdF wins and putting him in the history books. Some may view his fate as natural justice, but had he got his names into the history books it would have sat very comfortably next to that of Miguel Indurain.
He is one of only 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours. His name would already be in the history books regardless. I don't think he would have got leadership over Wiggins in 2012, in fact, had Cobo not been there in the Vuelta Wiggins would probably have won it because the team would have subordinated the complete unknown Froome to a much more known quantity in Wiggins, who had at least some pedigree in difficult stage races with his (then) 4th at the 2009 Tour, 3rd at Paris-Nice and win at the Dauphiné, and after Froome ceded the lead to Wiggins on La Manzaneda they'd have been wary of him cracking again (because his form was a complete unknown, having not completed a grand tour for two and a half years).

I mean, as long as we're being conjectural, if he hadn't had the positive test at the 2017 Vuelta, he'd probably not have that position as one of the 7 riders to win all 3 Grand Tours, because he wouldn't have gone to the Giro in 2018... but then he would perhaps more likely have won a 5th Tour de France because he wouldn't have been going there racing both back to back.

But regardless of what happens, Chris Froome has a place in the record books. A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

I don't think Froome will ever be loved or lionised in the same way as, say, Coppi and Bartali were; I don't think - unless something terrible happens, which I hope it doesn't - he will be romanticised and his flaws airbrushed away like we've seen with Simpson or Pantani; his personality (and more so Brailsford's) doesn't lend itself to the kind of mythologizing we've seen around Indurain. There are perhaps fewer fantastical exploits that fans will regale younger viewers with in generations to come than his peers who've won all 3 GTs (Contador and Nibali)... but he does at least have one - Jafferau (this was something that was perhaps missing from the jigsaw of his place in history - a signature ride that would hallmark his career; until then things like Peña Cabarga and Pierre Saint-Martin were the best we could point to - but with the Bardonecchia raid, even though from many quarters it was greeted with derision and as a great big FU to fair play, his supporters finally had that signature moment that they can point to in the same way, say, Contador's supporters point at Fuente Dé). Chris Froome may never fully succeed in convincing the entire fanbase that he deserves a seat at the pantheon of the legends of the sport, but to deny he has long since earnt himself a place in the history books is crazy.


you keep coming back to that, Froome isn't in this to be loved by a certain group of fans...

he doesn't care if he's accepted by fans
 
Re:

macbindle said:
A large proportion of the fans right now do not treat him with the level of respect that his palmarès ought to command, and there are a multitude of reasons for that (many of them, but not all of them, at least partially justified), but unless something happens that necessitates an Armstrong-esque rewrite of the whole period of his success, when he's long retired and the circumstances under which he turned from barely even justifying the designation "also-ran" to "superstar" have been forgotten, and a whole new generation of fans have grown with the sport who never saw him when he was active or, if they did, only saw him when he was already a highly decorated superstar so either did not understand, or did not recognise, the howls of derision with which his every achievement were greeted by large sections of the fanbase, people will just look through the records of stage races and Grand Tour winners, and see Froome's name crop up throughout the 2010s, and simply list him as an all-time great the way we rattle off the list of names of people we never saw race and whose exploits have long been romanticised, as people disappointed in the current spectacle often do with the past, remembering the good bits and forgetting the bad.

That is one hell of a sentence

macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.

That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
macbindle said:
veganrob said:
rick james said:
but if Froome doesn't care why even bring it up....
apparently you do

Very very much it seems.

Ricky has a massive boner for Froome. It gets in the way of things. He cant see the wood for the trees.
It can't be that massive then.


giphy.gif
 
Re: Re:

Altitude said:
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.

That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.

I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Altitude said:
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.

That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.

I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.

And now, for a full non-sequitur . . . let me hammer Carlton Kirby. -- Just kidding. He's actually grown on me a bit.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.

Wallace is far from universally revered, though I've found that his groupies--like those of Hemingway--tend to dwell in a small literary bubble.
 
Re: Re:

Altitude said:
I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.

Wallace is far from universally revered, though I've found that his groupies--like those of Hemingway--tend to dwell in a small literary bubble.

Long sigh. I let the groupie comment sink in before catching my breath and sitting down to remind everyone that I do not wish to derail this thread. I know it is probably too late, and for that I apologize. I promise I will not take up more space on the topic of David Foster Wallace in a thread devoted to a topic that is now forgotten.
I wont address the fact that most revered writers and academics are considered as quote groupies. We will leave that aside. That comment is what some would call trolling.
Sure, he might not be universally revered, but then again, most people have not read Infinite Jest. Just laying eyes on the tomb would turn a lot of people off before turning a page. My point being is some people tend to criticize before knowing what they are critiquing. I know a lot of people in literary society tend to act like a lot of road cyclists--i.e. assholes. That said, taking a jab at both the writer and readers without explanation is disingenuous at best.
How about this: Make a DFW thread in the proper forum and that way you will always be granted the last word.
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
the delgados said:
Altitude said:
macbindle for the lol of the day.
No one except for David Foster Wallace can properly pull off page long sentences.
This is not to bash one of the most thoughtful and valued contributors to this forum, so I am going to suggest that maybe LS purposefully skipped some steps. If not, LS is still the best.

That sentence, like most others posted on internet forums, is better than anything David Foster Wallace ever wrote.

I have no intention of derailing this thread, but I am stunned that anyone in their right mind would criticize David Foster Wallace. He was an absolute genius who is dearly missed. I swear that you are the first person I have ever heard take a dig at the guy.

And now, for a full non-sequitur . . . let me hammer Carlton Kirby. -- Just kidding. He's actually grown on me a bit.

As he should! Kirby is one of the most fascinating sports broadcasters I have ever heard. I don't mean that to say he is the best; I mean he has a way to make what is for the most part a boring sport to watch and make it somewhat interesting. He is a guy I would love to sit down and have a chat with.
But here I go again.
Sorry, please carry on.
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
rick james said:
you keep coming back to that, Froome isn't in this to be loved by a certain group of fans...

he doesn't care if he's accepted by fans

Why would you think that? Everybody wants to be liked or at least respected. Even Armstrong, who many people have called a sociopath, always craved to be admired.

Rick James says "a certain group of fans" it means the anti-Froome, those that will bash him 24/7 for anything, the way he drinks a cup of tea, his elbows, his wheels changes, his house in Monaco, his training places and so on, the 20 people on twitter that obsess about him and go on with the conspiracies about the crash etc.
He blocks them and goes on and races on. no need to bother. no use to care about them
 

TRENDING THREADS