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

[Ripper]

well, i just changed my signature about 5 mins ago. if you mean the dailypeloton almuni, u make a better case they were the trolls, and i am called them

i changed before. but miraculous coincidence, well, not hume miracle, rhetoric

I meant "froome is not a donkey folks"

 

[blackcat]

Your current sig is a troll

Look, Froomster is doin' it big time and the reason why he's getting flack is because there has been very little graded progression. The results he's posted and where is now are a huge jump, which is one reason why he gets the negative.

All this said, I would not call Froomorama without talent.

But Sky bothers the sh!t out of me. Basically the same vein as USPS.

Too much smoke. Way too much smoke.

also, his progression is akin to Wiggins.

Froome got a bad program, for a potential GT rider, but he was about 74kg then. he was finding out where his winning sweetspot would be, and he was loaded on a crap team with corti's new non-saffa barloworld.

we always hear about the crap why wiggins neve performed on the road in the post linda mac era, most concerning winning on track.

well, never put froome in context neither eh. bizharia came later.


yeah, froome is a pharma creation, but he has talent, and this is the pharma era of cycling.

some respect for the albino kenyan pls

 

[blackcat]

It has traction with me, I've even repeated it, but it's a hard sell to the people who defend Wiggins' pursuit palmares.

The thing that gets me is I can't find a single report where Wiggins actually tried to compete on the road - as a road racer. He did some TTs in minor races, and that green-jersey level l'Avenir break away but actual road racing: nothing.

Does anyone have ANY links or race reports where Wiggins, in a PT or WT race actually tried to race? Ever?

2007 was all about the road.

his words, not mine.

and London prologue.

Others preparing for 23 days, 21 racing days and HC climb acents and Pyrennees and Alps mtn passes, while Wiggo is working anaerobic efforts, and Spartacus, Kloeden and Hincapie pants him in London.

there IS media on his 2007 Road objectives DW.

 

[Ripper]

also, his progression is akin to Wiggins.

Froome got a bad program, for a potential GT rider, but he was about 74kg then. he was finding out where his winning sweetspot would be, and he was loaded on a crap team with corti's new non-saffa barloworld.

we always hear about the crap why wiggins neve performed on the road in the post linda mac era, most concerning winning on track.

well, never put froome in context neither eh. bizharia came later.


yeah, froome is a pharma creation, but he has talent, and this is the pharma era of cycling.

some respect for the albino kenyan pls

Wiggos progression is complete BS as well. I certainly do not give the bradman a pass.

What's this respect request? Is that to other posters or to me? I don't think I diss him more than pretty much everyone else I think might be overcookin' the sauce.

 

[blackcat]

Wiggos progression is complete BS as well. I certainly do not give the bradman a pass.

What's this respect request? Is that to other posters or to me? I don't think I diss him more than pretty much everyone else I think might be overcookin' the sauce.

ripper, it was a generic plea.

not to you

 

[Dear Wiggo]

2007 was all about the road.

his words, not mine.

and London prologue.

Others preparing for 23 days, 21 racing days and HC climb acents and Pyrennees and Alps mtn passes, while Wiggo is working anaerobic efforts, and Spartacus, Kloeden and Hincapie pants him in London.

there IS media on his 2007 Road objectives DW.

I've posted it - and 2006 was the same. BUt I am talking road racing, not prolog training. You know 180+ km of brutal effort. Nada. But these days it's all in a day's work for 3 weeks in a row for him.

 

[Ripper]

ripper, it was a generic plea.

not to you

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers

 

[Ripper]

I've posted it - and 2006 was the same. BUt I am talking road racing, not prolog training. You know 180+ km of brutal effort. Nada. But these days it's all in a day's work for 3 weeks in a row for him.

Well DW, there are two reasons why:
1. The field is much cleaner.
2. In a GT, Wiggo just races like he trains.

That's all it really is.

 

[Ripper]

Well DW, there are two reasons why:
1. The field is much cleaner.
2. In a GT, Wiggo just races like he trains.

That's all it really is.

LMMFARO, I can't even take that comment seriously for more than 10 seconds

 

[Dear Wiggo]

LMMFARO, I can't even take that comment seriously for more than 10 seconds

Ok good. Coz my forehead was crinkled so hard in consternation that singularities were starting to form.



There are some riders considered clean and they did big efforts to have a crack and try and win a stage, etc. David Moncoutie? Or another French dude. Brain fading post-training. Anyway. There are precedents.

 

[Big Doopie]

Indurain and Pantani, if he were still alive, might have a minor quibble with that statement. Armstrong could have easily done a double if he thought there was enough profit in it to care.

A new drug or new doping method gives a massive advantage to the early adopters. We saw it with CERA when a handful of riders were just killing it in a way we have not seen since the early 90s before everyone began using EPO. We saw it in 2000-2002 with USPS switching to blood transfusions. I think what we are seeing now is a new form of doping. To point to minor tweaks in the training of already fully developed pros as a reason for astonishing leaps in performance is ludicrous.

Good points. Please note that I said through blood doping not epo specifically. Epo could give an artificial high as long as you inject it. Blood doping. Presumably you have to store the bags at some point which can explain the sudden changes in form (Gila - TDF).

And I agree. If sky are doping, then it has to be a new drug.

 

[airstream]

Nice of you to choose 2 known dopers.

Surely, but why then do people so inspiringly defend early results (Contador, Schleck, Nibali, Evans) if we have doping in so to speak both age categories (22-24 and 26+)? What's the difference?

Anyway Froome is superb. The stronger a GC rider is — the bigger part of his success hearsay tends to ascribe doping. It works for any riders.

 

[frenchfry]

Froomedawg = shades of Geneviève Jeanson.

 

[ljpoyz]

With regards to Evans, I dont believe the year he won was anywhere near his best tour ride, weakened opposition etc meaning he won. I don't believe him winning is the issue, if he doped, it was his whole career. He has been incredibly solid over a long period of time. Just because he got over the line in 2011 doesn't man he went to the well late.

my economic argument on wiggins, has never got traction.

why would he have ridden on 50k GBP and trying to raise a family from the time he was at linda mac, if he could have earnt 1million euro per?

he is a solid rider no doubt. he has talent no doubt. could never climb tho. could not ride one day races or the road.

Clean Tour Winner at 34? like Brodeal said, 27=29 peak, male natural hormone levels recede in their mid twenties.

Evans and Wiggins winning at 34/35. not normal

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Surely, but why then do people so inspiringly defend early results (Contador, Schleck, Nibali, Evans) if we have doping in so to speak both age categories (22-24 and 26+)? What's the difference?

Anyway Froome is superb. The stronger a GC rider is — the bigger part of his success hearsay tends to ascribe doping. It works for any riders.

Because in the absence of any information at a deeper level, that's all we have for comparative purposes. Somebody whose performance level improves gradually will always seem less ridiculous - and therefore more plausible clean - than somebody whose performance plateaus, then suddenly explodes to the highest level. By the time somebody's been in the pro péloton for 5 years we start to feel we've got a handle on their level, so if they suddenly become amazing, or suddenly become terrible, then said results are anomalous with their previous level, which then fuels suspicion.

Besides, Contador, Schleck, Evans and Nibali are hardly 4 riders who the Clinic has left alone. It's just that Froome's transformation is a lot more obvious than those guys.

 

[blackcat]

With regards to Evans, I dont believe the year he won was anywhere near his best tour ride, weakened opposition etc meaning he won. I don't believe him winning is the issue, if he doped, it was his whole career. He has been incredibly solid over a long period of time. Just because he got over the line in 2011 doesn't man he went to the well late.

agree with these points.

circa mendrisio imo, he pulled the gun. before, it was just hormone replenishment, recovery doping that is not doping in the pelotons eyes.

he got a bit more real (grammar) after, pulled the trigger in a crepescular season of his career,

 

[blackcat]

Because in the absence of any information at a deeper level, that's all we have for comparative purposes. Somebody whose performance level improves gradually will always seem less ridiculous - and therefore more plausible clean - than somebody whose performance plateaus, then suddenly explodes to the highest level. By the time somebody's been in the pro péloton for 5 years we start to feel we've got a handle on their level, so if they suddenly become amazing, or suddenly become terrible, then said results are anomalous with their previous level, which then fuels suspicion.

Besides, Contador, Schleck, Evans and Nibali are hardly 4 riders who the Clinic has left alone. It's just that Froome's transformation is a lot more obvious than those guys.

well andy at vc roubaix and guimard, lots of noise on his espoir years. velits speak about him become racehorse overnight one season, to the pros ftw

 

[Franklin]

Surely, but why then do people so inspiringly defend early results (Contador, Schleck, Nibali, Evans) if we have doping in so to speak both age categories (22-24 and 26+)? What's the difference?

Anyway Froome is superb. The stronger a GC rider is — the bigger part of his success hearsay tends to ascribe doping. It works for any riders.

A fantastic strawman. You fully know that these riders have been dismissed as dopers on this forum, yet you boldly paint the fantasy that somehow these guys are seen as clean.

Airstream, a straight question: Why do you post this insulting lie?

 

[spalco]

And it shows no sign of abating, because the guy just rides everyone off his wheel, every race, despite riding in a seemingly inefficient and awkward style, he just has boundless energy. He just can't help himself. He comes across like Johann Mühlegg on a bike. And if I were a Sky fan, that would worry me.

This is true, and it's legitimate to mention it every time Froome wins a race, but the discussion hasn't made any progress since page 1 of this thread, or since august 2011, which makes it really tiring to follow.

You won't be able to convince anyone who doesn't agree already the suspicions against Sky are warranted without some finding some new information.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yea, and how many people here think Super Peaker Schleck is clean?

Probably as many as think Froome is clean, but we don't have month after month of excuse-making and justification that Schleck is clean. You'd think that the Saxo Train of Pain from 2008-9 should get a lot more leeway than Sky's given past results.

Even you, with your prime argument being that Froome is a genuine talent that was somehow overlooked by everybody, don't think Froome is clean, you just don't think he's the prime example of donkey to racehorse that the forum maintains.

I'd like to see Santi Pérez's early career numbers. I want to see if he was always destined to be a GT contender too.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This is true, and it's legitimate to mention it every time Froome wins a race, but the discussion hasn't made any progress since page 1 of this thread, or since august 2011, which makes it really tiring to follow.

You won't be able to convince anyone who doesn't agree already the suspicions against Sky are warranted without some finding some new information.

Which is also why it's very tiring to have to read the same tired justifications, many of which were debunked months ago or based on various interviews which contradict each other as the story takes shape, and very tiring to have to reiterate your position on the various issues (eg bilharzia) every single race the biohazard enters.

 

[spalco]

Yea, and how many people here think Super Peaker Schleck is clean?

I don't know how many people here think Schleck is clean (and considering his significant unpopularity in the CN forums in general it's probably not representative anyway), but he was definitely presented as the face of the new clean generation of cycling, especially opposite Contador for years in the media.

 

[airstream]

A fantastic strawman. You fully know that these riders have been dismissed as dopers on this forum, yet you boldly paint the fantasy that somehow these guys are seen as clean.

Airstream, a straight question: Why do you post this insulting lie?

No. I'm far from thought that any GT top-10 finisher is clean, but people make an absolutely special type of violator out of Froome one here which is very strange.

 

[Franklin]

Yea, and how many people here think Super Peaker Schleck is clean?

Bleh, we have Fleur for Berti and Auscyclefan for Cadel, but the vast, vast majority have been dismissing them for being dopers. The only defence on par with what we see here has been the Lance drama.

The sad part is that even the Sky fans realize this truth but really don't want to face that truth as it shows the weakness of their position.

hence we see these lies about Sky being singled out. They know they are lieing as the evidence on this forum is crushing against this allegation, but they simply can't stand the truth that they are a carbon copy of the Lance fans.

And no, that has nothing to do with the supposed guilt of Sky, it just shows that the mindset of the fans is exactly the same.

 

[Franklin]

No. I'm far from thought that any GT top-10 finisher is clean, but people make an absolutely special type of violator out of Froome one here which is very strange.

Oh no, you can't weazle out of this one. You know fully well nobody is defending those guys. Again, the lie is exposed.


Sorry for you, your posts are here for all to see, your desperate spin is pointless. You claim that anyone is defending those riders while the irrefutable truth is that nobody is defending them.

The only extraordinary defense there is is of Sky.

How is that for a cold hard fact Airstream?