No one knows what the clinic uses to mask any semblance of coherence. It is rapidly becoming a parody of itself.
Critérium du Dauphiné 2-9 June [spoilers]
- Thread starter smutchin
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No one knows what the clinic uses to mask any semblance of coherence. It is rapidly becoming a parody of itself.
Hont
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
If Porte had been able to follow at Froome's pace, they may have just been able to get the win - that certainly appeared to be the plan. I believe that he only "dropped" Porte to ensure that Talansky did not take 2nd on the day. A minor victory perhaps, but any psychological advantage is worth taking.
Hont
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
That's all some people need unfortunately.
The only similarity I see is the tactics themselves - ride a hard tempo up climbs to minimise the chances of attacks and prevent your leader from becoming isolated - and they're not the first to mimic them (think Liquigas in the Giro for Basso). You don't need to be doping to employ these tactics at the rate the peloton climbs these days. What you need is strong riders at peak fitness. Sky have the budget and the structure for both.
Froome's rise is a different issue. There may be explanations remarkable late blooming, but I can understand the suspicion. It was as well for his credibility that his Vuelta performance tailed off last year as not even Contador has made the podium on back to back GTs.
OP
OP
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
It's not really that late a blooming, is it? He's been among the genuine GC contenders since 2011, when he was 26 and arguably could have won a GT or two by now if he'd been given the opportunity. That's about the right age to bloom - riders have won it younger, eg Fignon, Ullrich, Contador, Schleck, but it's not common.
Before that... well, 2010 was a bad year for him personally with his illness, and a pretty disastrous year for Team Sky in general, so you can't really judge him on that. Prior to 2010, he was putting in some decent performances on a second-tier team. Not being a track cyclist is the main reason he didn't have much of a public profile in the UK prior to 2011 (unlike Barloworld team-mate Geraint Thomas), but he did well in the Giro in 2009, and the British Cycling coaches were obviously paying enough attention to recognise his potential and to want him in the Team Sky set-up.
Anyone who says that he arrived on the podium from nowhere in 2011 is being a little unfair on him. It's not hard to knock down the supposedly "reasonable grounds for suspicion" if you actually look at the facts.
Not that I'm suggesting this is proof that he's clean, mind. I'd just like to see some actual evidence before jumping to conclusions.
[edit: sorry, I'm not having a go at you personally, Hont. I know why you say you can understand the suspicion, and I might have felt the same in the past, but I'm training myself to be more circumspect about interpreting what people say about pro cyclists.]
oldroadman
Veteran
- Location
- Ubique
It's all a bit sad that some people on the forums are so cynical and unable to accept success.Cyclingnews is full of what appear to be unpleasant jealous posters - mostly US based from the language use and spelling - who cannot believe that a well drilled team using correct tactics to minimise the chance of attacks, which are trained properly, are not using something illegal. Their "proof" is winning. Which taken to the extreme means every under 12 who wins a little circuit race is being fed chemical assistance by their parents and coaches. Would anyone believe that, because by extension it's still success and therefore must be tainted. What a sad lot these trolls are.
Wait... you don't feed your kids chemicals to improve their performances?
No.. no... i see, you're joking.... right?!?
oldroadman
Veteran
- Location
- Ubique
Extrapolation to illustrate a point, of course. Only an idiot would use anything on either themselves or their family.
400bhp
Guru
:sigh:
degrades into doping talk...again.
I guess one of the issues is that cycling tours don't have easily available data for comparables, such as average speed up a particular climb, to compare year on year.
I know there's some stuff out there but nothing the race organisers/UCI seem to produce.
You just win events.
I would guess Froome's power per kilo up the major climbs is at the lower end of the winners of grand tours over the last 20 years, but I don't know?
degrades into doping talk...again.
I guess one of the issues is that cycling tours don't have easily available data for comparables, such as average speed up a particular climb, to compare year on year.
I know there's some stuff out there but nothing the race organisers/UCI seem to produce.
You just win events.
I would guess Froome's power per kilo up the major climbs is at the lower end of the winners of grand tours over the last 20 years, but I don't know?
Flying_Monkey
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
I was really making the point that CC is remarkably free of the cynical attitude which infects other sites, even while people here are certainly not naive.
Indeed.
My point, and also made by other CCers, is that the style and results of Sky, Froome and Wiggins makes it an easy, lazy comparison with USPS.
That's still fine, you don't understand most things anyway ... I have a strange sense of humour, try living with thatI'm naive
OP
OP
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Even if you have that data, you can't make a meaningful comparison because climbs appear at different points in the race from year to year - both within stages and within the race overall.
Not to mention people having different objectives and races unfolding differently. Any comparisons would be meaningless.
