Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the big ring]

Froome looks like LLS & Sastre. Evans looks even more doubious than Froome...

Froome's first 1 year increase matches the same increase in the first 2 years for Evans. His second increase matches the next 2 years.

ie in 2 years, Froome is going to match or exceed what a similarly aged and more experienced Evans did in 4 years.

Are you sure Evans looks more dubious?

 

[hrotha]

LA didn't do ok at TTs in GTs. Big Mig wiped the floor with him.

Big Mig wiped the floor with everybody, but in that particular ITT where Indurain passed him Armstrong was still 13th.
http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1978_2005/tdf1994_9.php

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Froome's first 1 year increase matches the same increase in the first 2 years for Evans. His second increase matches the next 2 years.

ie in 2 years, Froome is going to match or exceed what a similarly aged and more experienced Evans did in 4 years.

Are you sure Evans looks more dubious?

Ok he looks somewhat like Evans or AC:

 

[the big ring]

Ok he looks somewhat like Evans or AC:

He looks nothing like Evans. Keep in mind - Evans' graph is 12 years in the same width as Froome's 6. If the scale was the same you'd see it - same with AC even.

Beginning to see why they are not such a good idea - if you can't do the math in your head the graphs look similar when they are not in any way. Easy to see how the comparison can be made though.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

AC from 145 to 2.520 in 5 years
EV from 93 to 1.979 in 5 years
Froome from 170 to approx. 1.735 in 5 years...

Very comparable.

Not that i think any of them are 100% clean. In AC case it´s even on record three times.

 

[Cerberus]

AC from 145 to 2.520 in 5 years
EV from 93 to 1.979 in 5 years
Froome from 170 to approx. 1.735 in 5 years...

Very comparable.

Not that i think any of them are 100% clean. In AC case it´s even on record three times.

Except it's Froome 126 to aprox. 1.735 in 2 years. adding 3 years of no progression to the start to make it look more normal is pure BS.

 

[will10]

Except it's Froome 126 to aprox. 1.735 in 2 years. adding 3 years of no progression to the start to make it look more normal is pure BS.

Exactly

AC from 145 to 2.520 in 5 years
EV from 93 to 1.979 in 5 years
Froome from 170 to approx. 1.735 in 5 years...

Very comparable.

Not that i think any of them are 100% clean. In AC case it´s even on record three times.

This is like Armstrong spin.

 

[gthx_gthx_]

Comparing CQ points to compare performance , talents or breakthrough is ridiculous.

CQ points just indicates the number of good results a rider has. Not the way he beats his opponents.

When Voeckler got 1700 points last year it was mostly because he was consistent all year long and he had a very lucky TDF not because he smashed the best riders in the peloton in 1 Tour like Froome...You can't compare those two riders.
Just like you can't compare Evans and Froome , I don't remember Evans being as dominant as Froome in the mountains and in the time trial.

 

[roundabout]

I don't think Froome is dominant in the mountains, but he is consistently very good. Ok, maybe it's because he had to ride at the pace comfortable for Wiggins, but I can't recall a single occasion where he broke away from everyone and finished alone.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Exactly


This is like Armstrong spin.

Except it's Froome 126 to aprox. 1.735 in 2 years. adding 3 years of no progression to the start to make it look more normal is pure BS.

Ok, here we go for 2 years then. No problem:

Froome (age 26) 779-1045-ap.1735
AC (age 24) 619*-1632-2520
EV (age 28) 792-1327-1979

* the year before no progression (!!)

So here we are again: I don´t think Froome is totally clean, but he is no more "dirty", suspiciuos or doubious than Evans. Not even more than De Gendt. Not at all.

I think we should apply the "doubtness" equal to those who havn´t been linked to doping yet.

AC is a hardcore doper, no need to go further there anymore.

 

[Havetts]

AC is a hardcore doper, no need to go further there anymore.

AC is a hardcore doper, yet you spin things the good way for the only person right now capable of beating him..

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Very comparable.

Please stop if you ever want to be taken seriously again.

Ever heard of Fromme before september last year?

Please.

 

[roundabout]

That said, somewhere between 2009 and 2011 he could have a bit better considering his apparent talent.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

Yea pretty new I have watched all tours from 1997 and onward though
So he showed up in good shape at the Olympics obviously. What's the problem?

Btw re-watching the last stages of this Vuelta Froome's high rpm kinda reminds me of Armstrong Cool stuff

Cool. Glad your digging into the history. Lots of old stuff on youtube these days.

I guess the problem isn't him showing up to the Olympics in, as you say, "good shape", it's that your undervaluing the effort and energy needed to do what he did on the Olympic stage.

 

[the big ring]

As raised above, CQ only speaks to the accumulated points, not in the manner they were achieved.

I graphed a few riders as CQ vs years as a pro - Contador and Wiggins are still the standouts for me.

Curious to see Contador and Evans follow an initial spurt then decline, then Contador smacks everyone for 6. Wiggins waits until he's an old man of the peloton, doing nothing at all for 10 years before smacking everyone for 6.

It's pretty at least

 

[No_Balls]

So here we are again: I don´t think Froome is totally clean, but he is no more "dirty", suspiciuos or doubious than Evans. Not even more than De Gendt. Not at all.
I think we should apply the "doubtness" equal to those who havn´t been linked to doping yet.

AC is a hardcore doper, no need to go further there anymore.

One question you lying hypocrite: How does this justify Froome?

 

[Franklin]

AC is a hardcore doper, no need to go further there anymore.

*The worlds smallest violin*

Anyone who beats AC is good in your eyes.

You're here to push your own agenda, not to discuss in earnest.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Please stop if you ever want to be taken seriously again.

Ever heard of Fromme before september last year?

Please.

See, for the 1.000th time: I do not think that Froome is an angel or 100% clean. But it´s unfair to put him into the dust bin if we don´t do that also with the likes of Evans, Sastre, DeGendt and many many others.

So let me quote myself. You´ll see that Evans is even more doubtful, since he blossomed very late and was/is on very shady teams.

Ok, here we go for 2 years then. No problem:

Froome (age 26) 779-1045-ap.1735
AC (age 24) 619*-1632-2520
EV (age 28) 792-1327-1979

* the year before no progression (!!)

So here we are again: I don´t think Froome is totally clean, but he is no more "dirty", suspiciuos or doubious than Evans. Not even more than De Gendt. Not at all.

I think we should apply the "doubtness" equal to those who havn´t been linked to doping yet.

AC is a hardcore doper, no need to go further there anymore.

The following graph just puts it also into perspective. Froome is no more suspicious than others.

As raised above, CQ only speaks to the accumulated points, not in the manner they were achieved.

I graphed a few riders as CQ vs years as a pro - Contador and Wiggins are still the standouts for me.

Curious to see Contador and Evans follow an initial spurt then decline, then Contador smacks everyone for 6. Wiggins waits until he's an old man of the peloton, doing nothing at all for 10 years before smacking everyone for 6.

It's pretty at least

 

[roundabout]

As raised above, CQ only speaks to the accumulated points, not in the manner they were achieved.

I graphed a few riders as CQ vs years as a pro - Contador and Wiggins are still the standouts for me.

Curious to see Contador and Evans follow an initial spurt then decline, then Contador smacks everyone for 6. Wiggins waits until he's an old man of the peloton, doing nothing at all for 10 years before smacking everyone for 6.

It's pretty at least

Both Contador and Evans had health problems during the decline stage. Contador had his cavernoma and Evans kept on breaking collarbones at T-Mobile.

 

[Franklin]

The following graph just puts it also into perspective. Froome is no more suspicious than others.

Indeed, he follows the line of AC and squarley spanks Satre and Evans

So because AC is hardcore doper, that means Froome is cleaner because his performance mirrors... uhmmmmmm wait... your logic is utterly flawed...

Sorry for exposing the flaws in your posts! Sorry! Sorry to use facts!

 

[Bobby G]

Exactly why is a 25 year old with problems hampering him earlier in his career, bursting onto the field once he got it together, (like others around his age have done in the past) seen as the biggest fraud in history, whereas a 30 year old who could do absolutely nothing until he almost podiumed the tour and has since learned to tt and climb better than anyone else in the world, seen as the possible clean guy on sky.

Secondly we all know here that hundreds of riders have been doping over the years, most of our champions have done so, froome gets so much hatred on here, but he is not really any different to the others.

Wiggins meanwhile is a total **** who thinks he is gods gift to cycling, runs his mouth about anyone he feels like, throws enormous tantrums when people dont see him in as high a light as he sees himself, and has began to follow the Armstrong method of bullying people.

Attack Froome all you want but please people realize that it is Wiggins not Froome who is the big bad.

This, this exactly. Not a Froome fan particularly, but how he gets the lions share of it is beyond me whilst Mr. Twiglet gets off scot free. To be honest, the British love in with certain riders borders on pathetic. Harmon, Humphrey, Porter, Boardman, Boulting, Liggett, Sherwen ...... it borders on embarrassing.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Indeed, he follows the line of AC and squarley spanks Satre and Evans

So because AC is hardcore doper, that means Froome is cleaner because his performance mirrors... uhmmmmmm wait... your logic is utterly flawed...

Sorry for exposing the flaws in your posts! Sorry! Sorry to use facts!

No it´s not since AC blossomed in the real dirty era. Again, Tucker/Halamas numbers show a decline in power outputs overall.

 

[the big ring]

This, this exactly. Not a Froome fan particularly, but how he gets the lions share of it is beyond me whilst Mr. Twiglet gets off scot free. To be honest, the British love in with certain riders borders on pathetic. Harmon, Humphrey, Porter, Boardman, Boulting, Liggett, Sherwen ...... it borders on embarrassing.

No offense but this is the Froome thread. Pretty sure Wiggo is being discussed ad nauseum in both the Sky and Wiggins cadence threads.

 

[roundabout]

Indeed, he follows the line of AC and squarley spanks Satre and Evans

So because AC is hardcore doper, that means Froome is cleaner because his performance mirrors... uhmmmmmm wait... your logic is utterly flawed...

Sorry for exposing the flaws in your posts! Sorry! Sorry to use facts!

You are forgetting the slightly different time periods. I think 2011 was cleaner than 2007 so making a jump in 2007 would require more dope. Ergo, Froome is cleaner.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

One question you lying hypocrite: How does this justify Froome?

You are from spain, right?

Anyway. I´ll answer. Just read my last post.

And where did i lie?