Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[Netserk]

Dawg is a super-responder. Only explanation that makes any sense atm.

 

[thehog]

OK, I have no idea whether or not Froome is doping but some of the arguments that he IS make little sense at all.

So, he was a talentless rider...a no talent...useless...not even fit to be a domestique...even Brailsford thought he was crap etc etc.

Yet, he has just ridden the peleton off his wheel in appalling conditions this afternoon and more or less sealed victory on a race that he could probably have won by coasting in and relying on the TT.

Now, I understand that, prior to the Vuelta 2011 he had not posted any results anywhere near this. So, IF he is TALENTLESS...which seems to be the default position of his clinic detractors, I'm supposed to believe that this remarkable transition from tail-ender to GT contender has been brought about by the use of PEDs.

REALLY? I shall have to pop to Superdrug to see if I can get me some. Seriously, it is being suggested in here that you can take an absolutely woeful climber, who can scarcely stay on his bike...and give him some magic potion that turns him into Marco Pantani.

OK, I'm Brailsford...I think Froome is the worst rider on the squad and am thinking of dropping him. I have this amazing drug up my sleeve though, which Mr Leinders has supplied...it turns ugly ducklings into swans. So I dose Froomey up and Shazzaaaam....Froomedawg is born. Why bother though. Why not go and get the best young rider I can find and give it to him instead? Why waste it on a no-hoper.

Or is that it. It's a superdrug that only works on crap cyclists. It can turn any old knacker into a GC contender.

But hang on...if that's the case, why bother signing talent at all...just pick up everyone else's cast off dregs...grab a few decent club cyclists and not bother paying all these massive salaries. After all, we have a potion that turn them into world beaters.

It makes no (insert Kimmage profanity here) sense at all.

What makes more sense is that he actually IS talented. That he is tough. That he is determined and mentally strong. That, even though he make look ungainly (it never harmed Paula Radcliffe), he is actually pretty effin good on a bike.

So, perhaps we have to look a little bit harder at what has brought about this huge improvement. What was it that was holding him back? Perhaps he is riding at his true level now. He may be doping...I dunno, but his improvement can not solely be put down to some chemical formula. To suggest that he is talentless and that his form is all down to Superdrug is just fantasy.

So, the detractors who have something about them...perhaps Hitch...try and explain to me, is he talentless? Is the phenomenal career trajectory just down to drugs? Do you really believe that? I just don't see it.

I'm with you. I'm not seeing it.

He's clean.

I mean after that debilitating blood disease there's no way he'd put drugs in his system. No way.

It's completely normal.

He was like so sick. He wouldn't make comprises with his body.

No chance.

Also the blood passport means you can't dope anymore.

 

[Pentacycle]

I'm with you. I'm not seeing it.

He's clean.

I mean after that debilitating blood disease there's no way he'd put drugs in his system. No way.

It's completely normal.

He was like so sick. He wouldn't make comprises with his body.

No chance.

Also the blood passport means you can't dope anymore.

The point he was expressing was exactly the opposite; that Froome isn't necessarily riding clean, but that he doesn't belong in the 'pile of ****e' category.

He might use some stuff, but his performances weren't scientifically unexplainable. According to the numbers he once recorded in Aigle, that is.

 

[The Hitch]

OK, I have no idea whether or not Froome is doping but some of the arguments that he IS make little sense at all.

So, he was a talentless rider...a no talent...useless...not even fit to be a domestique...even Brailsford thought he was crap etc etc.

Yet, he has just ridden the peleton off his wheel in appalling conditions this afternoon and more or less sealed victory on a race that he could probably have won by coasting in and relying on the TT.

Now, I understand that, prior to the Vuelta 2011 he had not posted any results anywhere near this. So, IF he is TALENTLESS...which seems to be the default position of his clinic detractors, I'm supposed to believe that this remarkable transition from tail-ender to GT contender has been brought about by the use of PEDs.

REALLY? I shall have to pop to Superdrug to see if I can get me some. Seriously, it is being suggested in here that you can take an absolutely woeful climber, who can scarcely stay on his bike...and give him some magic potion that turns him into Marco Pantani.

OK, I'm Brailsford...I think Froome is the worst rider on the squad and am thinking of dropping him. I have this amazing drug up my sleeve though, which Mr Leinders has supplied...it turns ugly ducklings into swans. So I dose Froomey up and Shazzaaaam....Froomedawg is born. Why bother though. Why not go and get the best young rider I can find and give it to him instead? Why waste it on a no-hoper.

Or is that it. It's a superdrug that only works on crap cyclists. It can turn any old knacker into a GC contender.

But hang on...if that's the case, why bother signing talent at all...just pick up everyone else's cast off dregs...grab a few decent club cyclists and not bother paying all these massive salaries. After all, we have a potion that turn them into world beaters.

It makes no (insert Kimmage profanity here) sense at all.

What makes more sense is that he actually IS talented. That he is tough. That he is determined and mentally strong. That, even though he make look ungainly (it never harmed Paula Radcliffe), he is actually pretty effin good on a bike.

So, perhaps we have to look a little bit harder at what has brought about this huge improvement. What was it that was holding him back? Perhaps he is riding at his true level now. He may be doping...I dunno, but his improvement can not solely be put down to some chemical formula. To suggest that he is talentless and that his form is all down to Superdrug is just fantasy.

So, the detractors who have something about them...perhaps Hitch...try and explain to me, is he talentless? Is the phenomenal career trajectory just down to drugs? Do you really believe that? I just don't see it.

The idea that he always had the talent to smash the entire peloton at both mountains and tts makes even less sense. There's actually a history of nobodies taking drugs and becoming world beaters.

If it makes you sleep better at night you can say it's a mixture of both. Which isn't as hypocritical when it comes to froome since unlike wiggins he hasn't acused others of doping.

 

[taiwan]

Marco Pantani took a special potion which turned him into Marco Pantani, never mind Froome. Dunno about him being a pile of cr@p before, but look at his pre 2011 results and choose your own term. He's a different rider. Anyway blackcat maintains he's always had talent so his input would be appreciated.

 

[thehog]

The point he was expressing was exactly the opposite; that Froome isn't necessarily riding clean, but that he doesn't belong in the 'pile of ****e' category.

He might use some stuff, but his performances weren't scientifically unexplainable. According to the numbers he once recorded in Aigle, that is.

Numbers? The numbers.

Use your eyes.

They don't lie.

 

[Netserk]

I'd guess that Froome talent-wise is on the same level as Riis.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Only thing Froome has going for him that the epo isn't fuming out of his mouth like Riis in his time

 

[Pentacycle]

Numbers? The numbers.

Use your eyes.

They don't lie.

My eyes told me he was barely catching up with Spilak today. Spilak, possible TdF winner?

I'd guess that Froome talent-wise is on the same level as Riis.

Froome has 2 podiums in a GT, the same amount Riis achieved in his entire career until he was 33. He's also never won any important stage race besides the Tour. And he won the Amstel Gold, but that's a feat only reserved for the purest of all dopers.

At least Froome(apart from his alien style) looks like a proper GT rider.

 

[thehog]

I missed today's comedy.

Does anyone have a link to the video?

 

[airstream]

Nothing extraordinary from Froome today. The two who wanted to win more took it.To me he still caresses the pedals. Waiting for a Pena Cabarga style monster pull at Ax-3.

 

[Inquitus]

Froome struggled to get to Spilaks wheel, then the 2 worked together while the egos behind imploded, today's particular Froomedawg performance doesn't indicate doping at all imo.

 

[armchairclimber]

He looked to be working hard to me.

 

[thehog]

He looked to be working hard to me.

What does that mean?

If you dope you don't make an effort?

 

[Forunculo]

What amaze me more it's his aerodynamic, one of the worst I've seen. Everybody working at wind tunnels and this man pushing the turbo with that position.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I missed today's comedy.

Does anyone have a link to the video?

Just another day at the office for Chris, nothing special. Weak competition, the weather suited him, he wanted to win more than the rest.

Took just a minute in 9 kilometres.

He might use some stuff, but his performances weren't scientifically unexplainable. According to the numbers he once recorded in Aigle, that is.

You have them at hand?

 

[Pentacycle]

Took just a minute in 9 kilometres.You have them at hand?

Ask JV, he's my reference in that regard.

 

[Netserk]

Froome has 2 podiums in a GT, the same amount Riis achieved in his entire career until he was 33. He's also never won any important stage race besides the Tour. And he won the Amstel Gold, but that's a feat only reserved for the purest of all dopers.

At least Froome(apart from his alien style) looks like a proper GT rider.

Riis had shown more pre-transformation than Froome had pre-transformation.

 

[Pentacycle]

Riis had shown more pre-transformation than Froome had pre-transformation.

How old was that guy when he became a GC rider?

You can't compare them at all though. Riis was better suited to classics, Froome has the build of a GC rider.

Whether they're equally talented can only be judged in 10 years. Maybe in 20, when we get Dawg's biography and possible attached confessions.

 

[Netserk]

What had Froome won as a 25 year old?

Riis won a GT stage and came 2nd at Flèche du Sud and won 2 stages.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

What had Froome won as a 25 year old?

Riis won a GT stage and came 2nd at Flèche du Sud and won 2 stages.

Bjarne had a brain too...

 

[SundayRider]

how much time is he going to put into the rest of the field tomorrow that is the question?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ask JV, he's my reference in that regard.

So you actually havent seen them?

You shouldnt reference to them then, in my humble opinion.

Another mystery on Chris; the Aigle - numbers myth.

Chris, the Enigma Man.

 

[martinvickers]

This place is going to be SO much fun come July. I mean, scene from Scanners fun....

 

[Pentacycle]

So you actually havent seen them?

You shouldnt reference to them then, in my humble opinion.

Another mystery on Chris; the Aigle - numbers myth.

Chris, the Enigma Man.

Myth≠Mystery: the numbers exist, but nobody on the outside knows them.

But I agree the numbers are bo valuable reference. Unless someone here has them and makes them known, for the sake of this thread.