Richie Porte - what do we know about him?

[Spencer the Half Wit]

Yeah, you made that claim by comparing them to Purito and Hesjedal's, and I explained why they're not comparable.

All comparisons of form and results are an inexact science. Due to his fairly unique background, you'd struggle to find any rider who you could exactly compare Froome to. There are factors to say why JRod and Ryder's early results are better than Froome, but there are also arguments to say that Froome's are better.

It certainly does not prove either way whether Froome is doping or not.

 

[Galic Ho]

JV mentions it in the thread where sort of talks, and he does mention he was very interested in Froome, partially because of his impressive test results and because he was still a 'rough diamond', and had lots of possible improvement. And he wasn't the only one who was interested.

Perhaps he should kick himself in the shins then for not getting him. He did Sky a favour giving them Wiggins, they could at least return it.

How many times has Froome been mentioned as garbage, according to his team. 'The Graph', as you could call it, was a (mis)INTERPRETATION of what might have been Brailsford's system of classifying riders, based on 2010 CQ results probably. Froome however was a designated super-domestique for Wiggins for the '11 Vuelta, because they knew what he potentially had in him, but they wanted to be sure the Bilharzia didn't kill all his talent. Geez, how stubborn some people are here is just unbelievable.

Froome isn't the one you should be looking for, Wiggins is your man. Porte, I didn't think he was that impressive, but let's wait what he does against better riders. Leinders? Still very unclear for me what impact he had, since his disappearance didn't hurt anyone but Wiggo for now.

Have you ever seen proof he even has Bilharzia? Ever? Anyone? Seen proof that the graph was a blatant lie? Because all the riders form and success given the timing of that graph does actually match up. It's very accurate. EBH at the time was the clear talent. Lovqvist was the next best and Wiggins, Flecha and Rogers were around the same mark. Not hard to see that in their results. Same can be said for the low runners, Stennard, Kennaugh and Froome.

BTW, this thread is about Porte, who actually had some results in 2010. More than Froome did. Why is it that Bilharzia only ever got mentioned post 2011 Vuelta? Why also is JV talking up Sky? Oh that's right...his boy won a GT before Sky did and he's linked to Wiggins super duper year that he came behind LA in the Tour. Yeah, real honest there and trust worthy. Did JV also tell you how he was thinking of signing Contador and never thought he might be a doper?

JV is making crap up again. Post ad hoc justification to cover his tracks. His team relies on looking clean and because of their linked history, Sky getting busted is not good for his business. At all. Maybe next JV will tell us that he had Santambrogio tested whilst he was at BMC and how he knew that he'd go super well on a Pro Conti team (downgraded) chock a block full of former dopers...like The Killer.

As for looking out for Wiggins. No this year it's clear. The dynamic has changed. They are rivals now. Pure unmitigated rivals. I think Porte is on Froome's side but Wiggins has Brailsford by the nads. The aim early this season is to get Froome some wins so he looks more credible long run. So people don't do a wikipedia search and realise he went from squat to sudden world beater to actual GT winner. All in under 2 years. It's actually what a lot of us said Andy Schleck needed to do. Prove himself. A lot of it is actually ego. Wiggins has done it last year. He doesn't need to prove anything, but make no mistake. He is top dog at Sky. Froome however has the goods to spoil the party.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Go back and rewatch the 2008 Tour. Froome rode for Barloworld that year. Was garbage. Absolute garbage. John Lee Augustyn was the big name on that team other than Soler Hernandez. Where are they today?

Coming from a third world country means squat. Kenya is one of the best places to dope uninterrupted in Africa. Same with South Africa.

Also Froome didn't show up for the whole year and race. Last season he was supposedly doing no training then two weeks later was stomping people in the Dauphine. Bilharzia came back, couldn't ride, no training and then was stomping everyone but Evans and his own team mates. Not normal. The start of his season last year until mid June was all over the place.

That last paragraph is pretty much all made up, tremendous stuff. Just shows that you can make up whatever you like and people in here are happy to accept it all if it suits their own arguments.

 

[Galic Ho]

That last paragraph is pretty much all made up, tremendous stuff. Just shows that you can make up whatever you like and people in here are happy to accept it all if it suits their own arguments.

Go back and read the threads before the Tour. Or don't you remember? The biggest talk was about Froome being supposedly bed ridden and then he appears at a race and only Wiggins was better. Blame Sky for making the claims about him being ill not me.

Also, get a refund on your memory. It's in need of an upgrade. Froome was most definitely listed as being sick early last season, raced, got sick again and came back a world beater with an exception to his squad mate(s). Is that normal in your book? Oh and once more...what does that have to do with Richie Porte?

That's right they were all at Tennerife and Froomedawg had a case of that conveniently made up blood illness. Bet that made his blood profile look really cool and I bet Sky being so open and transparent will rush off to someone like Dr Ashenden to see what his opinion is!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Fearless,

I can see where you're coming from here, but there is a flaw in your reasoning.

You are assuming that Hinault and LeMond are more naturally talented than Wiggo and Fenton. (We can accept that the other La Vie Claire riders are superior to their Sky equivalents as their peak performance levels are demonstrably superior.)

You then highlight that Wiggo and Fenton are inferior to Hinault and LeMond and conclude that as they are performing at the same sort of level they must be doping.

But you're initial assumption - ie the natural superiority of Hinault and LeMond - is what you're actually trying to prove.

This was a favourite technique of mine in undergraduate maths exams - assume to be true what the question requires you to prove to be true - and work from there. It was surprisingly successful as a tactic.

Uh, I was merely debunking the comparison made by webvan, or what is his name.

I do not have to prove Hinault/LeMond/Fignon were bigger talents, take Roche with it for the good of it. Everyone knows. Or, should know.

Possible. 2008 would've been cleaner, but totally clean? As clean as now? I don't know. All I'm saying is that his results, given the other factors I've mentioned, are not that bad prior to his breakthrough in 2011.

Oi.

 

[xcleigh]

Here in the Clinic there is no place for the soft. Only the hard.

Do you need the Kleenex again...?

 

[Pentacycle]

For insiders Froome always was one of the best talents around, noone was asking questions about him because they simply had no reason to. Why ask questions about a rider who always seemed a good domestique in the making? Lofkvist? Man, that's one of the most overrated cyclists of the last 10 years. He had lots of placings just like EBH ,but both didn't perform in the big races.

Sky knew what Froome had in him, and I've always wondered why Porte couldn't climb. Richie was 5th(?) on the 2010 TT WC while he only weighs about 63 kgs. He clearly had an engine for the climbs, but at Sky they put them to better use than at Saxo apparently. But it's nonsense that Porte had no talent, he was a 3rd year pro who hadn't had many chances to prove anything, and he fitted perfectly in a team who usues TT-specialists who can climb in their train. The perfect opportunity for Porte to put his qualities to a good use.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Go back and read the threads before the Tour. Or don't you remember? The biggest talk was about Froome being supposedly bed ridden and then he appears at a race and only Wiggins was better. Blame Sky for making the claims about him being ill not me.

Also, get a refund on your memory. It's in need of an upgrade. Froome was most definitely listed as being sick early last season, raced, got sick again and came back a world beater with an exception to his squad mate(s). Is that normal in your book? Oh and once more...what does that have to do with Richie Porte?

That's right they were all at Tennerife and Froomedawg had a case of that conveniently made up blood illness. Bet that made his blood profile look really cool and I bet Sky being so open and transparent will rush off to someone like Dr Ashenden to see what his opinion is!

It's certainly news to me that Froome was bed ridden two weeks before the Dauphine, I thought he was on a training camp in Tenerife.

It's certainly news to me that he stomped all over everyone in the Dauphine, there was only one meaningful climb in the whole race and he never even got to the front of the Sky train on that.

It's even bigger news to me that Froome was bed ridden with bilharzia after the Dauphine and was unable to train in the run up to the Tour. I am amazed that nobody has commented on this before, you would think this thread would be twice as long as it is if this was the case.

Even bigger news was that Froome did not stomp all over Evans in the Tour, I must have been watching a different race to you.

But of course, pointing out all of these untruths just makes me a Sky fanboy, despite the fact that I have said on here a number of times that I believe Froome to be doping.

 

[Galic Ho]

Do you need the Kleenex again...?

I was the one informing people to use it. Was you I was suggesting should buy some was I not?

I know, I know. It's hard being a Sky fan. Tell you what. I know that the foreboding future is not looking good. That SkyNet has threatened cycling as a whole. I know the dark times worry you. Thinking about poor Richie is so thoughtful! But only a trip back to the past, can save the world and Richie. But who will do such a thing? Who will save you from your anguish in the Clinic?

I'll lend you the keys to the Delorean so you can travel back in time ala Kyle Reese and instead of getting laid with Sarah Connor, you can hop in Richie's ear and tell him to stay away from Sky, to stay away from Wiggins and Rogers. But most importantly, tell him about the Evil Chris Froome and his sinister plans to go full *** doping wise in 2013 and how future Richie will make stupid gaff comments that make him look like Lance! Oh and you can drop in that Lance gets busted and confessed otherwise you will sound like a crackpot.

Oh and have her back by lets say 6am my time? And because you are such a good wannabe time traveler who would do anything to save Richie from himself, you can make a copy of this photo and show it to him. Might have to explain what a meme is, because they weren't around in 2010 in force, but he'll get the picture. Oh and I'm sorry...to both you and Michelle Cound. Sometimes the people we love the most, hurt us the most. I was trying to warn you...oh and the movie part is true. Anything SkyNet have done or will do to eradicate the sport of cycling, is better than THAT movie franchise. Enjoy and get back to me about when you want the Delorean!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

For insiders Froome always was one of the best talents around, noone was asking questions about him because they simply had no reason to.

Insiders?

But indeed, Volpi and Bombini always had eye for rough talent, Corti too. Barloworld was a cesspool of doping with all Gewiss backgrounds.

Porte was a good TT - talent, now he can sprint up a mountain. Mountain of gains.

 

[Galic Ho]

It's certainly news to me that Froome was bed ridden two weeks before the Dauphine, I thought he was on a training camp in Tenerife.

It's certainly news to me that he stomped all over everyone in the Dauphine, there was only one meaningful climb in the whole race and he never even got to the front of the Sky train on that.

It's even bigger news to me that Froome was bed ridden with bilharzia after the Dauphine and was unable to train in the run up to the Tour. I am amazed that nobody has commented on this before, you would think this thread would be twice as long as it is if this was the case.

Even bigger news was that Froome did not stomp all over Evans in the Tour, I must have been watching a different race to you.

But of course, pointing out all of these untruths just makes me a Sky fanboy, despite the fact that I have said on here a number of times that I believe Froome to be doping.

Pre dauphine. Pre dauphine. Learn to read. Go back and find the threads yourself. Or better yet, you can take the Delorean along with xcleigh and pay a visit to Froome at Tennerife yourself. I believe I said he was at Tennerife. Also visit your folks and get them to not drop you on your head as a child. It'll help your memory recall functions!

BTW...the thread is about Richie. Not Froome. But by all means keep your obvious game up. It's not like diverting from the OP isn't frowned upon is it?

 

[webvan]

Besides Porte could be at 100% and go flat out at PN knowing that was his opportunity to win a prestigious 1 week race before resuming his super-domestique duties. Actually that was TJVG's analysis I believe...but of course the anti Sky resident experts here know better than TJVG...oh right TJVG is biased, obviously doping himself but not as well and is a victim of Omerta.

If Porte gets to lead at the Giro next year it won't be the same scenario. Picking your objectives and optimizing your condition for them iss certainly something that the planners at Sky know how to do, doping or not.

 

[cineteq]

For insiders Froome always was one of the best talents around, noone was asking questions about him because they simply had no reason to.

I guess Brailsford hasn't talked to those 'insiders' yet when he did his graph.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Pre dauphine. Pre dauphine. Learn to read. Go back and find the threads yourself. Or better yet, you can take the Delorean along with xcleigh and pay a visit to Froome at Tennerife yourself. I believe I said he was at Tennerife. Also visit your folks and get them to not drop you on your head as a child. It'll help your memory recall functions!

BTW...the thread is about Richie. Not Froome. But by all means keep your obvious game up. It's not like diverting from the OP isn't frowned upon is it?

I agree this is the thread to make stuff up about Porte but you were the one discussing Froome so I responded to it. You did mention that Froome was at Tenerife but you also said that Froome was not training two weeks before the Dauphine. Was he there for a holiday? All the reports last year were that Froome was ill early in the season and that Romadie was his first race back after illness. No reports of illness after that as far as I am aware, maybe you can provide a link as I am clearly not as well read up on this as you. Anyway, I shall not respond to any further reply in this thread and will let people get back to discussing Porte. I'll look forward to the link about Froome being bed ridden after the Dauphine in the Froome thread.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Besides Porte could be at 100% and go flat out at PN knowing that was his opportunity to win a prestigious 1 week race before resuming his super-domestique duties. Actually that was TJVG's analysis I believe...but of course the anti Sky resident experts here know better than TJVG...oh right TJVG is biased, obviously doping himself but not as well and is a victim of Omerta.

If Porte gets to lead at the Giro next year it won't be the same scenario. Picking your objectives and optimizing your condition for them iss certainly something that the planners at Sky know how to do, doping or not.

That's actually a good point. Paris Nice was Porte's main objective for the year, you can't really say that about many other riders at the race (possibly Westra). The others will be peaking for targets later in the year.

 

[Galic Ho]

If Porte gets to lead at the Giro next year it won't be the same scenario. Picking your objectives and optimizing your condition for them iss certainly something that the planners at Sky know how to do, doping or not.

There is a spot in the Delorean for you too. On the middle console in front of the flux capacitor. Gear stick is in the way though.

Or there is the trunk/boot. Take your pick. Because Bjarn Riis would really really like to know all of this. How he made such a boneheaded mistake getting rid of a guy who you say could win the Giro! It's like he sold another Contador!

So you better travel back in time and warn him. There might be a collectors fee for past you to randomly have fall into your bank account. Would be pretty nice back in the future right!

 

[Pentacycle]

Insiders?

But indeed, Volpi and Bombini always had eye for rough talent, Corti too. Barloworld was a cesspool of doping with all Gewiss backgrounds.

Porte was a good TT - talent, now he can sprint up a mountain. Mountain of gains.

What I like about the Barloworld argument, is that in some cases it's evidence of Froome's doping use, while his results and performances there, are in some other occasions proof of his lack of talent. It's messed up to argue like this.

Porte had some gains riding for the Brits, but if he was doping at Sky, he surely was doping at Saxobank more heavily. He beat Valverde in the hilly Romandie TT, 10th in San Sebastian after putting in a good attack, and 4th in the ENECO and Britain Tours, followed by a final 4th on the WC TT among world's best. That is pretty impressive for a neo pro, making his performances at Sky a good continuation of those results. 2011 was the odd one out here, not the norm. I agree that if he suddenly wins a GT he is as suspicious as it can get, but for now... it's all in the margin of what's possible for him.

 

[Galic Ho]

I agree this is the thread to make stuff up about Porte but you were the one discussing Froome so I responded to it. You did mention that Froome was at Tenerife but you also said that Froome was not training two weeks before the Dauphine. Was he there for a holiday? All the reports last year were that Froome was ill early in the season and that Romadie was his first race back after illness. No reports of illness after that as far as I am aware, maybe you can provide a link as I am clearly not as well read up on this as you. Anyway, I shall not respond to any further reply in this thread and will let people get back to discussing Porte. I'll look forward to the link about Froome being bed ridden after the Dauphine in the Froome thread.

Two weeks...four weeks. They weren't my stories. They were belong to the Sky managers. Not me. Threads said what you said and also it came up again that he got sick again. Bilharzia was one of the times. The other? Don't know, don't care. I'm sure as Richie said this week that when Froome ran to the doctor they gave him some nice legit tablet to take. After all, that's why Sky hires guys like Leinders. Brailsford said so himself today...oh wait he didn't say squat. Refused to.

I guess we won't know anytime soon hey?

 

[Galic Ho]

Porte had some gains riding for the Brits, but if he was doping at Sky, he surely was doping at Saxobank more heavily.

The reverse of this logic is that Rogers will be doping more than ever this year.

See you are helpful around here. I guess Contador won the super domestique lottery hey? Do let us all know how that goes for him.

 

[Pentacycle]

I guess Brailsford hasn't talked to those 'insiders' yet when he did his graph.

How many times do I have to say this: It isn't Brailsford's graph. Pure rubbish, made up by the interviewer who wrote the article. Maybe I should put this in my signature, so everyone finally realizes it. It is on the bottom right of the picture.

It could be true, of course, but it's most reasonable that those people who made the graph were wrong here. EBH a top WT rider? He was a mediocre performer who got most of his points in smaller races, so it's mostly BS.

 

[xcleigh]

Was you I was suggesting should buy some was I not?


I know, I know. It's hard being a Sky fan.
[/IMG]

That first sentence is the most sense you make in the whole rambling post of yours (grammar is your friend), I think, and I wouldn't know whether being a Sky fan was hard as I am not one, Cycling fan, yes, Team fan, No.

 

[Pentacycle]

The reverse of this logic is that Rogers will be doping more than ever this year.

See you are helpful around here. I guess Contador won the super domestique lottery hey? Do let us all know how that goes for him.

Rogers is the most prolific doper Sky could've had, but I've never argued against his sudden and suspicious peak in performance. He's having a hard time this year for a good reason, but I'm sure he earns well again.

 

[webvan]

That's actually a good point. Paris Nice was Porte's main objective for the year, you can't really say that about many other riders at the race (possibly Westra). The others will be peaking for targets later in the year.

Thanks, it's going to make TJVG happy ;-) More seriously I'm surprised that some who claim to follow cycling here don't know that the differences between these top cyclists is minute and that every little something counts, being at 100% vs 95%, hurting yourself a little bit extra because it's your main objective, racing in a team that's winning a lot (i.e. confidence), etc...what could be called marginal gains I guess...a concept that's been ridiculed by the crazed "froth at the mouth" anti-Sky experts. In the meantime they don't have a lot to show for themselves...the sole consolation I find to their polluting an otherwise great forum is that it's going to get worse for them before it gets better.

Oh and about Froome, the anti Sky resident experts seem to have forgotten that he posted the best numbers in Aigle when he was first tested there. Oh right, they are biased in Aigle and they had probably anticipated a big check from DB coming their way 5 years later so they cooked up his numbers. But that's boring so it's better to make up stories about him being bed ridden and then trouncing Cadel at the Dauphiné...last I checked it's Quintana who got away on Joux Plane but that doesn't fit the story.

 

[Galic Ho]

Rogers is the most prolific doper Sky could've had, but I've never argued against his sudden and suspicious peak in performance. He's having a hard time this year for a good reason, but I'm sure he earns well again.

For me the first one I noticed was Rogers. Because he was obvious. Then Wiggins. Froome and Porte later. Froome last because I literally do not remember him ever making a scene apart from that Giro stage in 09 that has done the rounds here. The stage Gerrans won.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Thanks, it's going to make TJVG happy ;-) More seriously I'm surprised that some who claim to follow cycling here don't know that the differences between these top cyclists is minute and that every little something counts, being at 100% vs 95%, hurting yourself a little bit extra because it's your main objective, racing in a team that's winning a lot (i.e. confidence), etc...what could be called marginal gains I guess...a concept that's been ridiculed by the crazed "froth at the mouth" anti-Sky experts. In the meantime they don't have a lot to show for themselves...the sole consolation I find to their polluting an otherwise great forum is that it's going to get worse for them before it gets better.

Oh and about Froome, the anti Sky resident experts seem to have forgotten that he posted the best numbers in Aigle when he was first tested there. Oh right, they are biased in Aigle and they had probably anticipated a big check from DB coming their way 5 years later so they cooked up his numbers. But that's boring so it's better to make up stories about him being bed ridden and then trouncing Cadel at the Dauphiné...last I checked it's Quintana who got away on Joux Plane but that doesn't fit the story.

Still waiting for the laVieClaire versus SKY line up webvan.

US Postal syndrome.

But to be nice, what are you rambling on Aigle numbers, please do explain. He did wind the Giro del Capo 2008/2009, is that the same? Or did you mean the Herald Sun Tour where he lost 40 seconds to O'Grady in the TT? Guess O'Grady was peaking for that, just like Porte in P-N?

For me the first one I noticed was Rogers. Because he was obvious. Then Wiggins. Froome and Porte later. Froome last because I literally do not remember him ever making a scene apart from that Giro stage in 09 that has done the rounds here. The stage Gerrans won.

You must have missed the Vuelta 2011 then.

Lets just say the Dawg came to full effect after Vuelta 2010, just like the whole of SKY. Must be a coincidence that coincided with the arrival of some doctor .