The Chris Squared Thread

[sublimit]

Quintana beat him twice and was only 29 seconds back on Ventoux. Horner would drop both of them.....then lose 2-3 minutes in a TT to Froome.

Probably means Froome or Quintana wins. Horner must hope for a mid range TTT, a short ITT, plenty of mountain finish parcours to be successful.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Are they even riding the Vuelta...

The autobus has has a blue tint to it, so I think Garmin are technically riding the Vuelta, but only for training it seems.

 

[hrotha]

Froome will be happy to let others ride away from him until they can TT like Tony Martin.

That would require Froome to actually demonstrate some tactical nous.

 

[Ferminal]

You mean Porte?

 

[the sceptic]

So according to Race Radio we can use climbing times and w/kg to judge Horners performance, but not Froome. With Froome we have to cherry pick the climb where he looked the most human and forget about everything else.

 

[sniper]

So according to Race Radio we can use climbing times and w/kg to judge Horners performance, but not Froome. With Froome we have to cherry pick the climb where he looked the most human and forget about everything else.

the new froome defense line is "horner would have kicked his ***".

how RR can be so sure only he knows.
everybody else agrees we haven't seen froome at 100% in the tour.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

So according to Race Radio we can use climbing times and w/kg to judge Horners performance, but not Froome. With Froome we have to cherry pick the climb where he looked the most human and forget about everything else.

You are mistaken, you are talking about Weather Radio, not Race Radio.



When BS is around, BS will be called upon.

 

[hrotha]

I'm not sure what RR said this time that is so wrong, much less Froome apologism.

 

[the sceptic]

I'm not sure what RR said this time that is so wrong, much less Froome apologism.

He keeps going on about how Semnoz is the true indicator of Froomes performance. Why he desperately wants to believe Horner was climbing faster than Froome I dont know but it seems obvious.

 

[sniper]

He keeps going on about how Semnoz is the true indicator of Froomes performance. Why he desperately wants to believe Horner was climbing faster than Froome I dont know but it seems obvious.

indeed.

basically, RR's determination to call out Horner is in stark contrast with his reluctance to call out Froome.

a bit of the same is true for Vaughters, by the way.

and yes, it's rather obvious indeed. Horner representing the Lance-related old school, Froome the new clean(er) generation.

 

[BYOP88]

indeed.

basically, RR's determination to call out Horner is in stark contrast with his reluctance to call out Froome.

a bit of the same is true for Vaughters, by the way.

and yes, it's rather obvious indeed. Horner representing the Lance-related old school, Froome the new clean(er) generation.

Well he did have lunch with mini-ET. So not really a surprise he isn't calling out Richie's 'BFF'.

I have noticed on here and on Twitter that people who were so against Armstrong seem content to accept what Sky are force feeding them.

 

[Race Radio]

So according to Race Radio we can use climbing times and w/kg to judge Horners performance, but not Froome. With Froome we have to cherry pick the climb where he looked the most human and forget about everything else.

Instead of parroting the nonsense of a banned troll I suggest reading what I have actually written.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Instead of parroting the nonsense of a banned troll I suggest reading what I have actually written.

We did, troll or no troll, please read 'the sceptic' again. You have written a lot of things, with buddy Neal Rogers and the Brits. Great conclusions also. Tailwind. Only when it mattered.

 

[gooner]

Well he did have lunch with mini-ET. So not really a surprise he isn't calling out Richie's 'BFF'.

I have noticed on here and on Twitter that people who were so against Armstrong seem content to accept what Sky are force feeding them.

I don't think that to be the case in general. I think you will find the same said people would find the Leinders affair a disastrous one, but in comparison to the Armstrong one, do we have a positive or the dumping of syringes by del Moral? That's why I think some are more reserved in their judgement than others at this time.

It still doesn't mean that they think Froome is clean. Far from it from my own point of view.

 

[BYOP88]

I don't think that to be the case in general. I think you will find the same said people would find the Leinders affair a disastrous one, but in comparison to the Armstrong one, do we have a positive or the dumping of syringes by del Moral? That's why I think some are more reserved in their judgement than others at this time.

It still doesn't mean that they think Froome is clean. Far from it from my own point of view.

Some of the British ones would put their hand in the fire for Froome.

 

[sniper]

I don't think that to be the case in general. I think you will find the same said people would find the Leinders affair a disastrous one, but in comparison to the Armstrong one, do we have a positive or the dumping of syringes by del Moral? That's why I think some are more reserved in their judgement than others at this time.

It still doesn't mean that they think Froome is clean. Far from it from my own point of view.

of course it doesn't, and nobody says it does. How likely is it that RR, Walsh, or Vaughters really believe Sky are clean? Rethorical question. They're just not calling it, and there is some hypocricy in that, considering the evidence against Armstrong in the early 2000s or Horner now isn't/wasn't much more damning than the evidence we have against Sky/Froome.

We have Walsh and Vaughters (and to a lesser extent RR) throwing about hints that Horner is a doper, and at the same time they provide us with excuses for Sky's dominance.

 

[BYOP88]

of course it doesn't, and nobody says it does. How likely is it that RR, Walsh, or Vaughters really believe Sky are clean? Rethorical question. They're just not calling it, and there is some hypocricy in that, considering the evidence against Armstrong in the early 2000s or Horner now isn't/wasn't much more damning than the evidence we have against Sky/Froome.

We have Walsh and Vaughters (and to a lesser extent RR) throwing about hints that Horner is a doper, and at the same time they provide us with excuses for Sky's dominance.

Didn't one or 2 of those people say that David Moncoutié was a doper?

 

[del1962]

of course it doesn't, and nobody says it does. How likely is it that RR, Walsh, or Vaughters really believe Sky are clean? Rethorical question. They're just not calling it, and there is some hypocricy in that, considering the evidence against Armstrong in the early 2000s or Horner now isn't/wasn't much more damning than the evidence we have against Sky/Froome.

We have Walsh and Vaughters (and to a lesser extent RR) throwing about hints that Horner is a doper, and at the same time they provide us with excuses for Sky's dominance.

You really are havin a larf

I think you make things up as you go along

 

[Benotti69]

You really are havin a larf

I think you make things up as you go along

You mean Armstrong working with a doping doctor(Ferarri) is not the same as Froome/Wiggins working with a doping doctor(Leinders)!

Armstrong not being a GT contender in all previous GTs he rode to then podium in 99 not similar to Wiggins and Froome being Gruppetto fodder to podiums!

Nope no comparisons.

 

[del1962]

You mean Armstrong working with a doping doctor(Ferarri) is not the same as Froome/Wiggins working with a doping doctor(Leinders)!

Armstrong not being a GT contender in all previous GTs he rode to then podium in 99 not similar to Wiggins and Froome being Gruppetto fodder to podiums!

Nope no comparisons.

So you are going to ignore Emma, Betsy, the way he treated Bassons etc

As I say, you guys make it up as you go along.

 

[GuyIncognito]

So you are going to ignore Emma, Betsy, the way he treated Bassons etc

That's another thing they have in common.
Froome treated Wiggins badly because Wiggins is clean. del1962 told me he is so it must be true.

 

[del1962]

That's another thing they have in common.
Froome treated Wiggins badly because Wiggins is clean. del1962 told me he is so it must be true.

hmm, another one who makes things up as he goes along

anyway he didn't treat him badly, he won the tour for him

 

[GuyIncognito]

hmm, another one who makes things up as he goes along

anyway he didn't treat him badly, he won the tour for him

SobSob says otherwise
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-defends-armstrong-but-is-critical-of-team-sky

Yates also confirms that Bradley Wiggins was close to quitting the 2012 Tour de France after tension with teammate Froome during the race, sending a text message saying, “I think it would be better for everyone if I went home.”

 

[del1962]

SobSob says otherwise
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-defends-armstrong-but-is-critical-of-team-sky

yes well, Wiggo can be a drama queen sometimes

he really should appreciate the work froome did for him more

 

[Scott SoCal]

Some of the British ones would put their hand in the fire for Froome.

And then there would be Brits with burned hands.