That graphic is self-explainatory (or how it is spelled). Five Sky riders are enough to defeat anyone on this Tour. Plus Froome could easily win the whole stage, he would have caught Rolland if he wanted imo.
housoe wrote:
a couple of years ago you could say this...
The fact is that Saunier-Duval are devising revolutionary training methods. The result is a rider like Ricco developing quickly.
or such great young talents like Dekker, winning Romandie
he's clean
And still Dekker had a steady development and great talent did'nt really come out of nowhere. Way more credible than Froome.
Actually hope Froome is clean and it shows he is just one of the greatest talents ever, and his sickness is the reason for this explosive development this recent year.
Manager of Team Vestas Wind Project, Pro Conti Team In the Pseudo man game
Ok... I gave my opinion on my view about Froome not doping, and arguing the case etc... But after yesterday's stage, even I am beginning to doubt what I said, and would like to retract some of what I said.
Listening to David Harmon on Eurosport has just made me realised what Froome did yesterday, and even he seemed to question it.
With about 10km to go yesterday, Froome seemed to die, fall to the back of the group, and almost lose contact. Next, he is back at the front, causing all but Nibali, Pinot and Wiggins to be dropped, before dying again. He drops to the back of the group, looking like he is suffering before attacking like a mad man, leaving all but Pinot in his wake, and only had to stop because he is 'called back' on his radio to help Wiggins. And then right at the end, he sprints for 3rd place, gaining 2 seconds on Wiggins and Nibali.
Im sorry fellow Brits/Team Sky peeps, that is very very very suspicious...! :S
the_hoyle wrote:
Ok... I gave my opinion on my view about Froome not doping, and arguing the case etc... But after yesterday's stage, even I am beginning to doubt what I said, and would like to retract some of what I said.
Listening to David Harmon on Eurosport has just made me realised what Froome did yesterday, and even he seemed to question it.
With about 10km to go yesterday, Froome seemed to die, fall to the back of the group, and almost lose contact. Next, he is back at the front, causing all but Nibali, Pinot and Wiggins to be dropped, before dying again. He drops to the back of the group, looking like he is suffering before attacking like a mad man, leaving all but Pinot in his wake, and only had to stop because he is 'called back' on his radio to help Wiggins. And then right at the end, he sprints for 3rd place, gaining 2 seconds on Wiggins and Nibali.
Im sorry fellow Brits/Team Sky peeps, that is very very very suspicious...! :S
I said the same thing yesterday right after the stage.
At the front around 2nd, 3rd place all day, then pulls for about 10kms uphill, then drops, then hits the front again dropping more riders, then drops again, then attacks, then realises he's better than his leader so slows down, than stays at front till final 500m where he sprints ahead and beats everyone else.
Will try and work on my spelling this time, as the grammar police are on this thread.
One point I say that was interesting was the wattage numbers, surely these will change over time though.
Cross sport analogy so not sure it applies:
20-30 years ago in the 100M a sub 10second time would have been very good, now it would be the basics just to get through national qualifying.
Does this mean that the wattage of the runners has increased, or that they are better able to use the same wattage?
Therefore would you not expect (with everything else equal) that todays riders would be faster than 10-20 years ago?
Seemed a fairly serious discussion so wanted to ask questions about that.
the_hoyle wrote:
Ok... I gave my opinion on my view about Froome not doping, and arguing the case etc... But after yesterday's stage, even I am beginning to doubt what I said, and would like to retract some of what I said.
Listening to David Harmon on Eurosport has just made me realised what Froome did yesterday, and even he seemed to question it.
With about 10km to go yesterday, Froome seemed to die, fall to the back of the group, and almost lose contact. Next, he is back at the front, causing all but Nibali, Pinot and Wiggins to be dropped, before dying again. He drops to the back of the group, looking like he is suffering before attacking like a mad man, leaving all but Pinot in his wake, and only had to stop because he is 'called back' on his radio to help Wiggins. And then right at the end, he sprints for 3rd place, gaining 2 seconds on Wiggins and Nibali.
Im sorry fellow Brits/Team Sky peeps, that is very very very suspicious...! :S
I was about to post the same thing, and no, this isn't about "Jealous little Europeans", or anyone else for that matter, so much of this is biased bullshit. I'm not biased, I can look at the two Australians on Sky and think, "Hmmm.. Rogers on the front for 50km.. no."And Porte the day before. And even Boasson Hagen, I know he's not a bad climber for a classics rider/sprinter, but to lead the peloton up the colossal Madeleine just doesn't happen.
It should be called "bitter little europeans jealous of British domination and hiding behind their computer screens".
Just for your information, those British riders, who're not all Bristish, by the way, don't owe you anything (correct me if I'm wrong). So you have nothing to be proud of, unless I've missed something. Nothing to be ashamed of either if they do something wrong.
Seeing all this through nationalistic glasses is plain stupid.
Most of us couldn't care less about which country this team is from, and what nationality their riders have.
So, if people would please remove their nationalistic glasses, discussions could become a little more relaxed and sensed. Thank you.
Kirchen_75 wrote:
Nah he is scottish, u know that British thing when someone is brilliant he's a brit and when he isnt he returns to being scottish, northern irish, welsh etc.
This is a myth perpetuated by people who think it's funny.
NEWSFLASH: It was funny the first time, but boring and completely untrue now!
Gaffeff wrote:
Will try and work on my spelling this time, as the grammar police are on this thread.
One point I say that was interesting was the wattage numbers, surely these will change over time though.
Cross sport analogy so not sure it applies:
20-30 years ago in the 100M a sub 10second time would have been very good, now it would be the basics just to get through national qualifying.
Does this mean that the wattage of the runners has increased, or that they are better able to use the same wattage?
Therefore would you not expect (with everything else equal) that todays riders would be faster than 10-20 years ago?
Seemed a fairly serious discussion so wanted to ask questions about that.
Watts per kg already include the output. They're effective Watts, not produced ones. The difference will be more or less the same that what is measured by SRM and what is indirectly measured by F. Portoleau and his likes.
The human limit would be around 410 W average. For the very finest human being (with all the right genes), in ideal conditions of freshness, training, etc. but clean.
Before EPO times, nobody even came close to that number, despite the "soft" doping going around. The most talented riders, such as LeMond, Fignon, etc. managed 390 W at their peak, on one occasion (not on average).
The only riders who've crushed this limit have sooner or later been involved in doping scandals. Froome (and others) seem to be crushing it, though the Tour is not over yet, so a definitive average cannot be calculated.
430 W is considered miraculous, 450 is beyond words. Yesterday Froome was slightly under 440 W it seems (so was Pinot, btw).
Sure training helps, it makes people more consistent around their limits. It helps them pushing their limits, a little. That the best climbers would perform consistently around 390 W would be acceptable. Strangely enough, the best ones whose integrity is not really questioned are still around that figure.
on this
