Then how do you explain that the performance levels have gone back to Armstrong's days?
Armstrong was 8ish years ago, surely technology, training methods, recoovery, nutrition have all improved since then. Look at Sky warming up and down, most teams are now doing this. Competition drives improvements in everything.
Quintana stuck with him? and he attacks for fun is he not doping aswell ? if someone from youre country was to be winning the tour, say contador from Spain or Mollema/Gesink/Ten Dam from Holland then would you say that they would dope aswell ?
Santambrogio doped in the Giro and Nibali kept with him up the steep climbs so did he not dope aswell ? see what youre saying is ludicrous, we dont have the 'doping culture' in GB maybe David Millar is a bad example but he was on the continent at the time, not in a GB team, with GB coaching and GB ways of training and clean priniples from the principle to the soigneurs.. shame that cant be said about the majority of the teams in the protour!
stop whining cause a Brit is looking like they will win the tour for 2 years running...sour grapes!
dtbutterfield wrote:
Quintana stuck with him? and he attacks for fun is he not doping aswell ? if someone from youre country was to be winning the tour, say contador from Spain or Mollema/Gesink/Ten Dam from Holland then would you say that they would dope aswell ?
Santambrogio doped in the Giro and Nibali kept with him up the steep climbs so did he not dope aswell ? see what youre saying is ludicrous, we dont have the 'doping culture' in GB maybe David Millar is a bad example but he was on the continent at the time, not in a GB team, with GB coaching and GB ways of training and clean priniples from the principle to the soigneurs.. shame that cant be said about the majority of the teams in the protour!
stop whining cause a Brit is looking like they will win the tour for 2 years running...sour grapes!
Is that your Sky fanboy disguise?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
bibb229 wrote:
Then how do you explain that the performance levels have gone back to Armstrong's days?
Armstrong was 8ish years ago, surely technology, training methods, recoovery, nutrition have all improved since then. Look at Sky warming up and down, most teams are now doing this. Competition drives improvements in everything.
This is not F1 where technology matters sunshine. This is cycling, theres not much to improve especially with climbing. Matching doped to the eyeballs Lance's time and the way Froomebot accelerate simply is not possible without doping. That's my view on it.
dtbutterfield wrote:if someone from youre country was to be winning the tour, say contador from Spain or Mollema/Gesink/Ten Dam from Holland then would you say that they would dope aswell ?
So you admit that in your mind national bias plays a big part then
dtbutterfield wrote:
we dont have the 'doping culture' in GB
Ah yes, anglophones don't dope.
David Allen, Chris Armstrong, Alain Baxter, Jamie Bloem, Lee Bowyer, Asim Butt, Danny Cadamarteri, Dwain Chambers, Linford Christie, Chris Cornes, Tim Don, Rio Ferdinand, Heather Frederiksen, Russell Garcia, Ed Giddins, Ryan Hudson, Jamie Hughes, Willie Johnston, Mark Lewis-Francis, Mark Marshall, David Millar, Jonathan Moore, Carl Myerscough, Shaun Newton, Terry Newton, Christine Ohuruogu, Callum Priestley, John Simpson, Tom Simpson, Duncan Spencer, Adam Tanner, Mark Tout, Graham Wagg, Dougie Walker, Janine Whitlock.....yeah no doping culture at all
dtbutterfield wrote:
maybe David Millar is a bad example but he was on the continent at the time, not in a GB team, with GB coaching and GB ways of training and clean priniples from the principle to the soigneurs.. shame that cant be said about the majority of the teams in the protour!
Go ahead, say 'Wogs begin at Calais'. You know you want to.
dtbutterfield wrote:
stop whining cause a Brit is looking like they will win the tour for 2 years running...sour grapes!
Stop whining because the obvious doper happens to sorta be british this time. Chauvinist.
dtbutterfield wrote:
oh and Froomes time up the Ventoux was only the 22nd fastest... Kreuziger has been up it quicker... i dont think froomes a druggy.. calm down!!
No he wasn't. Get your facts straight
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
dtbutterfield wrote:
oh and Froomes time up the Ventoux was only the 22nd fastest... Kreuziger has been up it quicker... i dont think froomes a druggy.. calm down!!
Far from true. He was 2 seconds off Armstrong's record from 2002.
dtbutterfield wrote:
oh and Froomes time up the Ventoux was only the 22nd fastest... Kreuziger has been up it quicker... i dont think froomes a druggy.. calm down!!
Far from true. He was 2 seconds off Armstrong's record from 2002.
Ignore the start of the climb where they went sloooooow and consider only the part where Sky and Froome were actually setting pace: Half a minute faster than Pantani over 6.15kms
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
This is not F1 where technology matters sunshine. This is cycling, theres not much to improve especially with climbing.
Dude... do you even ride bro?
Most ridiculous thing i've read on here in quite a long time... I'm no Froome fan, but seriously if you're trying to tell me kit makes no difference, watch me go up the same hill twice, once on my Carbon Boardman, and then again on Dad's Aluminium/Carbon Scott.
Equipment makes a massive difference and the point Bibb makes is a genuine one, Armstrong wouldn't have had access to the equipment Sky are riding on, hell look at their TT kit etc, 80% of the current peloton doesn't even have that stuff! It doesn't account for why Froome can drop everyone like he did today, but it says things as to why he, with a massive tailwind all the way up the Ventoux:
Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.
Can ride home inside the time of Lance Dopestrong. I'm not saying Froome is clean, I'd love to think he was but no, I don't actually believe it. But to try and say equipment has no effect... try going out on a bike.
This is not F1 where technology matters sunshine. This is cycling, theres not much to improve especially with climbing.
Dude... do you even ride bro?
Most ridiculous thing i've read on here in quite a long time... I'm no Froome fan, but seriously if you're trying to tell me kit makes no difference, watch me go up the same hill twice, once on my Carbon Boardman, and then again on Dad's Aluminium/Carbon Scott.
Equipment makes a massive difference and the point Bibb makes is a genuine one.
ahahaha so youre saying the rest of the PRO TOUR peloton got shit equipment compared to Skyborgs? You are some idiot seriously....
Every team in Pro tour got the finest equipment. We are not talking about yours and your dads coz it's bloody irrelevant.
This is not F1 where technology matters sunshine. This is cycling, theres not much to improve especially with climbing.
Dude... do you even ride bro?
Most ridiculous thing i've read on here in quite a long time... I'm no Froome fan, but seriously if you're trying to tell me kit makes no difference, watch me go up the same hill twice, once on my Carbon Boardman, and then again on Dad's Aluminium/Carbon Scott.
Equipment makes a massive difference and the point Bibb makes is a genuine one.
ahahaha so youre saying the rest of the PRO TOUR peloton got shit equipment compared to Skyborgs? You are some idiot seriously....
Every team in Pro tour got the finest equipment. We are not talking about yours and your dads coz it's bloody irrelevant.
Please no offending comments from now on. Have a normal discussion, if you can't, then leave.
P.S. That goes for everybody here that's using offensive language to someone else.
Baggieboys32 wrote: It doesn't account for why Froome can drop everyone like he did today, but it says things as to why he, with a massive tailwind all the way up the Ventoux Can ride home inside the time of Lance Dopestrong
Next time learn to read...
Edited by baggieboys32 on 15-07-2013 10:38
Baggieboys32 wrote: It doesn't account for why Froome can drop everyone like he did today, but it says things as to why he, with a massive tailwind all the way up the Ventoux Can ride home inside the time of Lance Dopestrong
Brailsford just stated again at a press conference that we wont give up Froome's data.
He says it is a unique, private and secret profile for a person, which only should be examined by relevant expert-people (Lab rats, Anti-Doping, WADA the ones controlling blood passport etc).
Furthermore he says looking at Froome' data alone, would be the same as looking only at an ITT instead of a whole Tour. In other words he says it only provides the small picture, in a big context.
He do not feel we are competent enough nor will he acknowlegde the transparency these numbers COULD provide. He will rather keep the data as a secret.
Even LeMond has been suspicious and eager to get Froome's data, and argues everyone should do it so we can have a more transparent and clean sport. LeMond will not get his enquiry forfilled, yet...
This is not F1 where technology matters sunshine. This is cycling, theres not much to improve especially with climbing.
Dude... do you even ride bro?
Most ridiculous thing i've read on here in quite a long time... I'm no Froome fan, but seriously if you're trying to tell me kit makes no difference, watch me go up the same hill twice, once on my Carbon Boardman, and then again on Dad's Aluminium/Carbon Scott.
Equipment makes a massive difference and the point Bibb makes is a genuine one, Armstrong wouldn't have had access to the equipment Sky are riding on, hell look at their TT kit etc, 80% of the current peloton doesn't even have that stuff! It doesn't account for why Froome can drop everyone like he did today,
Go read Fred Grappe's study of bikes. He had several of his riders compare performance with a 1980 pro bike and a modern bike. '5w at most' was his conclusion. The real difference is in comfort.
As for Armstrong, his excuse for domination was exactly the same: that he had more advanced methods, better equipment, bla bla. Just like Sky, he also completely failed to name even one thing he did better with training.
baggieboys32 wrote:
but it says things as to why he, with a massive tailwind all the way up the Ventoux:
Can ride home inside the time of Lance Dopestrong. I'm not saying Froome is clean, I'd love to think he was but no, I don't actually believe it. But to try and say equipment has no effect... try going out on a bike.
That was just another example of Henderson's constant sarcasm on twitter. For example:
Hey @AndreGreipel. All you have to do is 565w for 20mins after 5hrs racing to hang onto Froome. Less raving more concentración por favor
There was actually a very strong HEADwind, as you can tell by the flags on the course, and by ten Dam's interview where he said so.
Or heck, look at the flag here Edited by issoisso on 15-07-2013 10:43
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
Ybodonk wrote:
Brailsford just stated again at a press conference that we wont give up Froome's data.
He says it is a unique, private and secret profile for a person, which only should be examined by relevant expert-people (Lab rats, Anti-Doping, WADA the ones controlling blood passport etc).
Furthermore he says looking at Froome' data alone, would be the same as looking only at an ITT instead of a whole Tour. In other words he says it only provides the small picture, in a big context.
He do not feel we are competent enough nor will he acknowlegde the transparency these numbers COULD provide. He will rather keep the data as a secret.
Even LeMond has been suspicious and eager to get Froome's data, and argues everyone should do it so we can have a more transparent and clean sport. LeMond will not get his enquiry forfilled, yet...
What's so unique about it? Dope stats. I've seen many many riders posting their data on twitter. It's not a big deal, unless you got something to hide.
