Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[thehog]

Exactly.
You're starting to get it now.

Taking the last 7k of 1 climb and jumping to a conclusion is like determine globalling warming because it was nice last Tuesday

But I'm not. I'm using Froome's back story, his performances prior to the Tour and Vuelta 2011, his diseases, faux asthma etc. make my determination that he's a doper. Not two data points.

I didn't use a picture or Froome wedding though..

 

[42x16ss]

Which riders? The ones doing the pulling.....or the ones nicely sheltered all the way?.......ever ridden 236k?......ever ridden in a peloton?.........no, thought not........but you still know what is and what isn't relevant and you know how easy/difficult it is.

Mark L

As someone who HAS raced races over 200km MANY times, I can tell you first hand that once you get past 180-190km you are entering into uncertain territory. This is where you find out if you really do have the goods, regardless of whether you're in the middle or off the front (obviously it's harder off the front.)

Nobody, NOBODY - even the pro's - just turns up and races along for 200km+, especially at the pace that stage was raced at. BTW - attacking Hitch for not being a rider when you've admitted you aren't a cyclist yourself (if I remember correctly) is more than a little rich!!!

 

[Tonton]

Hitch: Either you are missing my points, or I am missing yours.

I'm saying the French have tended to question most non-French performances, nothing more.
I'm not saying that Contador's lack of form was THE reason, just that it emphasized Froome's performance, still further.
That is all.

I'm not following your point "A" at all.

So your long post comes down to this. The French. Sounds like Phil and Paul back in the day, before the fall of Wonderboy ,

What French rider's performance deserved scrutiny until '14? Jeremy Roy ?

And BTW, Pinot releasing data has not been covered in l'Equipe, or anywhere else, yet. It would have been otherwise if you were right.

Rubbish.

I would so love to see Dawgs data compared to Pinot How one can hang onto cars Cavendish style, be DQed in the Giro and be the best climber in the TdF two years later, being the second coming of Charly Gaul.

The French. Jealous. Yeah, heard that before.

Rubbish.

 

[42x16ss]

So your long post comes down to this. The French. Sounds like Phil and Paul back in the day, before the fall of Wonderboy ,

What French rider's performance deserved scrutiny until '14? Jeremy Roy ?

And BTW, Pinot releasing data has not been covered in l'Equipe, or anywhere else, yet. It would have been otherwise if you were right.

Rubbish.

I would so love to see Dawgs data compared to Pinot How one can hang onto cars Cavendish style, be DQed in the Giro and be the best climber in the TdF two years later, being the second coming of Charly Gaul.

The French. Jealous. Yeah, heard that before.

Rubbish.

You forgot zig-zagging over the Capi

 

[The Hitch]

Which riders? The ones doing the pulling.....or the ones nicely sheltered all the way?.......ever ridden 236k?......ever ridden in a peloton?.........no, thought not........but you still know what is and what isn't relevant and you know how easy/difficult it is.

Mark L

I don't know why you make a big deal of froome being sheltered, as if that wasn't true for 90% of the peloton on any given day including all his opponents. It's already factored in that froome that like everyone else and like 99% ofr tdf stages in history the gt leaders are doing most of the race sheltered.

It's still a big deal to do 236 km. Some.mountain stages are 100km shorter. Some have even been less than half the distance of 2013 ventoux.

The top classics are all considered hard for length, and they tend to be only a little bit longer than 2013 ventoux stage. Amstel gold, Lombardi and lbl are I all think 20km longer than that stage was. While the stage wasn't up and down like those races are we also have to consider none of those classics have Mont ventoux at the end and none come after 14 race days.

Msr is perhaps a better example of why length does matter while it's way longer than that stage was, it has no major other obstacles. In short gt stages sprinters who get dropped year after year in san remo, routinely conquer far Harder climbs than the poggio and cipressa. It's the length that makes it hard. No I have never ridden Msr, but plenty who have have said as much.

Once one accepts that distance does matter one can perhaps appreciate the difference between a 160km stage a 200km stage and a 236km stage.

Edit: and of course I defer to 42's post, a poster who is not only very familiar with the distance and the speed but has also ridden with many of the pros.
.

 

[The Hitch]

Which riders? The ones doing the pulling.....or the ones nicely sheltered all the way?.......ever ridden 236k?......ever ridden in a peloton?.........no, thought not........but you still know what is and what isn't relevant and you know how easy/difficult it is.

Mark L

Btw since you think being sheltered makes such a massive difference, perhaps we can revisit the 2012 tour and ask why sky riders, especially Rodgers and Richie Porte, were able to ride hours per day on the front and still drop most of the peloton (who afterall, were sheltered) when the road went uphill.

 

[The Hitch]

Exactly.
You're starting to get it now.

Taking the last 7k of 1 climb and jumping to a conclusion is like determine globalling warming because it was nice last Tuesday

If by nice you mean 45 degrees Celsius and by last Tuesday you mean middle of the winter in Siberia, then yes you will have found a good climate analogy for Chris Froome's performance in the 2013 tour.

 

[heart_attack_man]

If by nice you mean 45 degrees Celsius and by last Tuesday you mean middle of the winter in Siberia, then yes you will have found a good climate analogy for Chris Froome's performance in the 2013 tour.

This. So much this.

Froome's '13 Tour was ridiculous. He rode up Ventoux like he was going down it.

 

[red_flanders]

I can't believe at this point there are actually people defending Froome. It's idiotic. Get a grip, both of you.

 

[ebandit]

Quality contribution from you there, red flanders......personal attack and attempt to shut down debate.....adds nothing but a spiteful tone that has been pleasingly missing these last few pages.....maybe you shouldn't post if you've nothing to contribute

Mark L

 

[Digger]

Quality contribution from you there, red flanders......personal attack and attempt to shut down debate.....adds nothing but a spiteful tone that has been pleasingly missing these last few pages.....maybe you shouldn't post if you've nothing to contribute

Mark L

for argument sake how do you think he improved so dramatically? and how do you think he has repeatedly put out w/kg on climbs faster than known dopers, ventoux being only one example...secondly, how do you think he's beating known dopers clean?

And finally, you believe froome is clean?

 

[Mellow Velo]

So your long post comes down to this. The French. Sounds like Phil and Paul back in the day, before the fall of Wonderboy ,

What French rider's performance deserved scrutiny until '14? Jeremy Roy ?

And BTW, Pinot releasing data has not been covered in l'Equipe, or anywhere else, yet. It would have been otherwise if you were right.

Rubbish.

I would so love to see Dawgs data compared to Pinot How one can hang onto cars Cavendish style, be DQed in the Giro and be the best climber in the TdF two years later, being the second coming of Charly Gaul.

The French. Jealous. Yeah, heard that before.

Rubbish.

No.....................it doesn't. My two line, original post is quite clear.
Anglo media, mostly.

Still, jump in at any point and make of it what you will.............as you clearly did.

 

[daveyt]

If by nice you mean 45 degrees Celsius and by last Tuesday you mean middle of the winter in Siberia, then yes you will have found a good climate analogy for Chris Froome's performance in the 2013 tour.

Bit melodramatic for a 29 second gap?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Bit melodramatic for a 29 second gap?

Compared to his previous performance pre-2011 Vuelta? Not at all. Did you know he raced in 2010?

 

[TailWindHome]

If by nice you mean 45 degrees Celsius and by last Tuesday you mean middle of the winter in Siberia, then yes you will have found a good climate analogy for Chris Froome's performance in the 2013 tour.

Indeed.

Scientists will however not conclude man made global warming based on one weather event.

The folks who want to blame the gays will however seize it as conclusive proof that their world view is correct. They may even tell anyone who doesn't agree to 'get a grip'

 

[timmers]

So back on track why is there not a poll on whether Walsh, who is Irish but I am not sure if northern or Eire, is on the Sky bandwagon which would potentially end this thread.

The supplementary question I would have would be who cares? He is a newspaper journalist so is governed by his editors to some extent and who really cares?

 

[daveyt]

Compared to his previous performance pre-2011 Vuelta? Not at all. Did you know he raced in 2010?

Yeah, he wasn't very good. Either there were a lot of things holding him back pre 2011 (I would say mainly lack of experiance) or he started doping in 2011. Either could be true, I lean towards the former. Anyone 100% sure either way is probably an idiot.

 

[sniper]

Yeah, he wasn't very good. Either there were a lot of things holding him back pre 2011 (I would say mainly lack of experiance) or he started doping in 2011. Either could be true, I lean towards the former. Anyone 100% sure either way is probably an idiot.

anyone leaning towards the former doesn't strike me as particularly prudent either.

 

[daveyt]

anyone leaning towards the former doesn't strike me as particularly prudent either.

Fair one, I understand people thinking doping is still rife at the top of pro cycling. It's people who talk about it in certainties that make we want to punch a wall. Not because I am overly defensive of Froome et al but it's the sheer lack of evidence based reasoning.

 

[Dr. Juice]

Froome was clean until 2011 I believe. After a disappointing first year at Sky, his results did not improve much in 2011.
Midway into the season he thought "maybe I won't get a new contract...I'm 26 now so my youth bonus or the still-in-development argument is gone"
Plus he knew his teammate Wiggins was doping since his Garmin days. Why not try? We all saw what it did to him.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Yeah, he wasn't very good. Either there were a lot of things holding him back pre 2011 (I would say mainly lack of experiance) or he started doping in 2011. Either could be true, I lean towards the former. Anyone 100% sure either way is probably an idiot.

Have you ever raced? Coz it doesn't sound like it if you honestly think experience is something that holds back GT winning capable riders. At least mention the go-to excuse of bilharzia if you're going to defend that improvement, ok?

 

[hrotha]

How did he gain all that experience in a couple of weeks between Poland and the Vuelta? Microchip implant?

 

[Parker]

I can't believe at this point there are actually people defending Froome. It's idiotic. Get a grip, both of you.

Now here's the thing. You don't actually know he's doping or not. You just think you know and convince yourself you know. The same applies to those who thing they know he's clean. But you don't know. And nor does anyone else who posts here.

Personally I don't know. It's the only truly honest stance. I can lean towards him being clean, but it's only an opinion based on little, just as the opinions that go the other way are. The more certain they are, the more dishonest those opinions become. To think your opinion is the obvious truth and the opposing opinion is idiotic, is the only idiotic view. It shows a lack of intellectual confidence to say 'I don't know'.

It is not so much the opinions that people hold that me and others dismiss, it's the 'evidence' and arguements used to justify those opinions that are wrong.

If someone claimed that a rider was clean and justified this with the 'never tested positive' defence they would be dismissed and maybe ridiculed - and rightly so as it's fundamentally flawed reasoning.

But the cherry picking of limited data and then ignoring all variables with the expection of the one that interests you is equally fundamentally flawed. To anyone numerate it is equally laughable as evidence of doping as the lack of a positive test as evidence of cleanliness.

Those who dismiss others opinions as idiotic when there own are equally unsupported are the true idiots.

 

[Parker]

How did he gain all that experience in a couple of weeks between Poland and the Vuelta? Microchip implant?

He didn't. In Poland Sky were chasing WT points for GB (to the point of chasing breaks to help Adam Blythe get a top 5 position on a stage). His and Stannard's job was to try and get into breaks or to help catch them. More puncheur type riders like Kennaugh and Cummings were the GC riders - this was a race won by Peter Sagan after all.

 

[daveyt]

Have you ever raced? Coz it doesn't sound like it if you honestly think experience is something that holds back GT winning capable riders. At least mention the go-to excuse of bilharzia if you're going to defend that improvement, ok?

Saw an interview with Alex Dowsett where Dowsett rekoned Froome had to work twice as hard as everyone to stay in the same position as he made a lot of mistakes. Am sure I have heard similar from elsewhere. But not just race experience, experience in understanding his body for training and diet. And yes injury and illness did play a part messing up his developement curve.

It's a combination of things, just dismissing that not coming through a competitive system as a teenager seems bizarre.