The rise of FROOME: sound familar, Galen?

froome wrote:

I am sorry, but Froome has absolute stick legs and pushed out MASSIVE watts. He grew up riding with a bunch of africans on mountain bikes. Why aren't they all pro riders too?

You could say the Rupp took drugs and could recover faster and put in more work, sure . . . but at least his body type is built for distance running.

But Froome is putting out massive wattage after a week of riding epic stages with those things called legs. Anorexic Froome and Wigins are some of the top TTers? Give me a break.

Watts are not a measurement of physical appearance.

When will cycling fans realize that speed and time are what decide races?

Charles Watts wrote:

froome wrote:

I am sorry, but Froome has absolute stick legs and pushed out MASSIVE watts. He grew up riding with a bunch of africans on mountain bikes. Why aren't they all pro riders too?

You could say the Rupp took drugs and could recover faster and put in more work, sure . . . but at least his body type is built for distance running.

But Froome is putting out massive wattage after a week of riding epic stages with those things called legs. Anorexic Froome and Wigins are some of the top TTers? Give me a break.

Watts are not a measurement of physical appearance.

When will cycling fans realize that speed and time are what decide races?

As soon as you realize that I was talking particuraly about TTs as the best example of doping and how I understand that power squared is proportional with speed.

Did you even look at the picture? Much less the power files which were leaked (I believe sky said they were "hacked") from froome's rides?

When Wiggins won the 2011 National 10-mile title he said his average power output was 476 watts, which because 10s are ridden at slightly above threshold meant his threshold then would have been around 460 watts.

If watts don't correlate with physical appearance why don't sprinters look like twigs? They take peds for raw power, roadies take PEDs for sustained power.

errrrrrrrrrr wrote:

Charles Watts wrote:

Watts are not a measurement of physical appearance.

When will cycling fans realize that speed and time are what decide races?

As soon as you realize that I was talking particuraly about TTs as the best example of doping and how I understand that power squared is proportional with speed.

Did you even look at the picture? Much less the power files which were leaked (I believe sky said they were "hacked") from froome's rides?

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/14/its-easy-to-join-the-black-list/Bradley-Wiggins-Skinny.jpg

When Wiggins won the 2011 National 10-mile title he said his average power output was 476 watts, which because 10s are ridden at slightly above threshold meant his threshold then would have been around 460 watts.

If watts don't correlate with physical appearance why don't sprinters look like twigs? They take peds for raw power, roadies take PEDs for sustained power.

. Clearly Froome and Wiggins have power despite not looking like they would. Hard to have sustained power without having power in the first place.

My point exactly . . . PEDs are the obvious culprit.

40 mg of Prednisone:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2696428

froome wrote:

My point exactly . . . PEDs are the obvious culprit.

I guess you've never seen a Cheetah or a Pronghorn? High power with no muscle mass, sustained power with no muscle mass

Prednisone:

"On my runs I am still feeling amazing. I feel like warming up is totally unecessary now. I can just start running fast immediately and it's like my joints and muscles are already ready to go. I feel invincible, not just in running, but just in general. It's making me file like a tough guy, or really healthy."

Froome got a TUE for this. Such B.S.

Charlie Watts wrote:

froome wrote:

My point exactly . . . PEDs are the obvious culprit.

I guess you've never seen a Cheetah or a Pronghorn? High power with no muscle mass, sustained power with no muscle mass

Cheetahs can only sprint for a 100 yards max. You need to try harder.

Tell us, we're you a diehard Lance defender?

It's ok if you were.... it's called being optimistic. But if you see mountain goats placing in the top of tts then you've got to seriously evaluate how that is possible.

cheetahs wrote:

Charlie Watts wrote:

I guess you've never seen a Cheetah or a Pronghorn? High power with no muscle mass, sustained power with no muscle mass

Cheetahs can only sprint for a 100 yards max. You need to try harder.

Tell us, we're you a diehard Lance defender?

It's ok if you were.... it's called being optimistic. But if you see mountain goats placing in the top of tts then you've got to seriously evaluate how that is possible.

No, it's closer to 300 yards but shouldn't they be really bulky if they can only go 100?

No. I thought Lance cheated from day 1

Mountain goats are placing better in TTs because training knowledge allows better multi-dimensional ability,

If you think it's doping that allows that you have explain how it allows one to defy physics according to your theory.

The Pronghorns closest relative is the Chamois. which is like a mountain goat.

You knew lance was doping from day 1?

But you think Froome is clean?

Tarded

yeah buddy wrote:

You knew lance was doping from day 1?

But you think Froome is clean?

Tarded

I did not say that.

Charles Watts wrote:

When will cycling fans realize that speed and time are what decide races?

No shit.

You forgot doping though.

Charlie Watts wrote:

froome wrote:

My point exactly . . . PEDs are the obvious culprit.

I guess you've never seen a Cheetah or a Pronghorn? High power with no muscle mass, sustained power with no muscle mass

Those are pretty poor examples of animals who have sustained power.

Besides, they look normal for their body structure. ... the point here (which you are missing) is that the dopers look sickly, especially club light of their abilities. They are dopers.

Everybody knew Lance was doping when he started out climbing everybody despite have 10k on the best climbers. He doesn't have the body of a mountain goat but rode better than the best. EPO is a hell of a drug.

errrrrrrrrrr wrote:

Charles Watts wrote:

Watts are not a measurement of physical appearance.

When will cycling fans realize that speed and time are what decide races?

As soon as you realize that I was talking particuraly about TTs as the best example of doping and how I understand that power squared is proportional with speed.

Did you even look at the picture? Much less the power files which were leaked (I believe sky said they were "hacked") from froome's rides?

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/14/its-easy-to-join-the-black-list/Bradley-Wiggins-Skinny.jpg

When Wiggins won the 2011 National 10-mile title he said his average power output was 476 watts, which because 10s are ridden at slightly above threshold meant his threshold then would have been around 460 watts.

If watts don't correlate with physical appearance why don't sprinters look like twigs? They take peds for raw power, roadies take PEDs for sustained power.

Calvin Smith wasn't much more than a twig and he set the world record in the 100m. He was one of the few clean sprinters of his generation. Turnover and efficient form combined with less body weight will produce fast times.

Froome and Porte are very remind me of Armstrong and Hincappie. Especially when Porte passed Quintanna. Froome looked like Armstronf pulling away from Jan Ulrick[quote]Twigs can be fast wrote:

cheetosrunna wrote:

Charlie Watts wrote:

I guess you've never seen a Cheetah or a Pronghorn? High power with no muscle mass, sustained power with no muscle mass

Those are pretty poor examples of animals who have sustained power.

Besides, they look normal for their body structure. ... the point here (which you are missing) is that the dopers look sickly, especially club light of their abilities. They are dopers.

I only said the Pronghorn had sustained power, which it does to run at the speeds it can for long distances.

The point is that both look scrawny and if they were trained like a Greyhound or Racehorse they would look just like Froome and Wiggins.

And what about me?

defying physics wrote:

Everybody knew Lance was doping when he started out climbing everybody despite have 10k on the best climbers. He doesn't have the body of a mountain goat but rode better than the best. EPO is a hell of a drug.

Have you ever seen a Mountain goat?