- May 26, 2009
Cheers for the reply, it's ok I'm aware that people have other stuff that needs attention IRL instead of the fun game of back &forth of internet chat rooms.Ventoux Boar said:[Sorry to break off mid-chinwag. Had to catch a few Spring photons]
I don't mind the odd game of 'handbags' every once in a while, who doesn't?Ventoux Boar said:That's a fair question. And good deal more rational than the Sky shill taunts. No offence, but your general posting suggests you're far too sharp for handbags. (Not that I'm not game for a laugh)
I don't think I've ever said he was a donkey. I think(I could be wrong in my logic) it's unlikely a "donkey" would survive that long in the peloton. Regarding the responding to the gear, maybe a clean bill of health meant he could respond better to his or the teams program or maybe he's never done any gear and he is just that good.Ventoux Boar said:My take is that I don't believe in miracles. I doubt he was a donkey 6 weeks before the Vuelta, somehow scored some seriously good gear, permanently transforming him into the best rider most of us have ever seen.
I think it's much more likely that his results were compromised by illness, inexperience at elite level, defensive team tactics, and 1001 other things that lead most riders to fall short of their potential. If correct, it's shortsighted to directly equate results with maximum performance.
I accept he had Schistosomiasis at some point in his life, again I don't think I've ever doubted that point. I just find it strange that the amount of tests that are run on cyclists by elite teams wouldn't they pick something up with Froome's test results. Given the PR that Sky come up with and the science they say they employ, I do find it a little odd that this could escape their net. From the stuff I've looked up about the illness it does seem that with most illnesses the quicker it's found the easier it is to treat and cure. The longer it's left the more damage it does and can lead to more serious conditions like HIV, flaccid paraplegia, Bladder cancer and other stuff. It would help if the info regarding Froome and this all said the same thing, but Cound says one thing, Team Sky say another, Froome says another and so on. Look at what Cound said on Velorooms regarding the treatment in March 2012 to what Froome said about it.
I don't think it matters if a guy is riding the Tour for the first or tenth time, you got the legs you've got them. The reason that people mention the climbing times is because of the stuff Brailsford says. Just out of interest, do you think that Valverde and Quintana are clean?(I'm happy to discuss that in the Movistar thread, to not derail this one)Ventoux Boar said:I also think his dominance over Tour debutant, and superstar Valverde sacrifice, Quintana is exaggerated. As are the climbing records - sample size and Alpe d'Huez for example.
I see your point that he may have needed to fix stuff and those things may have turned him from autobus-podium, but in the time frame of Poland to Vuelta, I don't see how that's possible.Ventoux Boar said:Accepting that he needed to fix quite a few things, but that the underlying engine was sound, paradoxically makes the dark arts case easier to make. Now we don't need miraculous transformations, we just need a snapping of resolve in desperation to save a career. And regular, 'everybody does it', doping.
Been doing that on another forum. Could do with a few more hours in the day.Ventoux Boar said:All this heretic hunting is diverting y'all from committing acts of original thought around the Sergio situation.
Once again, thanks for the reply. Have a good one.Ventoux Boar said:That's my take.