Can't believe Ligget last night, Well if Froome has denied doping then thats enough for me. FFS didn't Armstrong deny doping. Also he goes onto talk about Armstrong, he shouldn't be talking about Armstrong at any stage. Ligget is a biased flog.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, I know not that much about cycling. However, usually, isn't there a sort of trade off between the riders - what I mean is some do better on some days, others do well on others. Froome has so far dominated the mountain stages, never seeming to be very likely to crack. Whereas, say in 2011, the Schlecks would attack, on some days, and Contador near the end etc. Whereas this tour it seems like Froome is just better than everyone on every climb (as well as TTs), and he (and usually Porte), just raise the speed of the group of elite climbers, until they all can't keep up, and then Froome attacks, smashing everyone. This is what makes it suspect to me. Is this sort of understanding right?
Yes, I know, however, when was the last time someone was this dominant across basically every single stage?His times are being compared to known dopers and are either equal or better.
His power output is very high for his weight.
It's not about who he is smashing. He's smashing the stopwatch.
Yes, I know, however, when was the last time someone was this dominant across basically every single stage?
I've only been watching for 5-6 years and nobody has ever dominated every mountain stage like Froome does.
Lance was winning the tour by 6-7 minutes but not even he would smash the field on every mountain.
Contador in the 2011 Giro absolutely smashed everyone. Most one sided GT I remember.Yes, I know, however, when was the last time someone was this dominant across basically every single stage?
FRED CLUSTER analyzed the physical potential of Chris Froome during the past two years and found no abnormalities.
Winning the Tour is one thing, but convincing a sceptical sector of the cycling media and public that it is being done ethically is proving harder for Team Sky. That challenge has prompted Dave Brailsford to make another attempt to prove his team are above board by providing the newspaper l'Equipe with all the climbing data Chris Froome has produced in the past two years: 18 ascensions dating back to the Vuelta a Espana in 2011, when the Kenyan-born Briton made his big breakthrough.
If Froome isn't doping then I am the two-testicled version of Lance Armstrong.
This is a complete farce.
That is friggin useless as you have no baseline to work off!!
Here you go doomsayers, feed this one into Google Translate, though the heading is probably enough:
"Froome is clean".
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/Tour/130717_VLV_Walsh
Get over it people. Better trained, better prepared, and just better.
Here you go doomsayers, feed this one into Google Translate, though the heading is probably enough:
"Froome is clean".
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/Tour/130717_VLV_Walsh
Get over it people. Better trained, better prepared, and just better.
"Froome is clean".
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/Tour/130717_VLV_Walsh
Get over it people. Better trained, better prepared medical program, and just better.
Team Sky are better at it*Just my opinion but they are all doping, every last one of them. Froome is just better/better at it.
You think he did all that on purpose? Conspiracy theories are funny.anyone buying the little show Froome put on last night?
You think he did all that on purpose? Conspiracy theories are funny.
Oh, so you think he did crack or not? Depleting his energy stores would certainly have made a difference.If you were going to "crack" anywhere it would be 5km from the finish. The food wouldn't have made any difference. Lets not forget he actually increased his lead on that stage.
Oh, so you think he did crack or not? Depleting his energy stores would certainly have made a difference.