Froome on Wiggins and more

PuttyKnees

A quote regarding Froome's tome rather than from it this time?

woody1545

iainf72 wrote:

One for the Wiggins-In camp : If he rode, what would your expectations of him be?

Froome is the leader : Of that there is no doubt. Porte is the number 2 (maybe, maybe not)

Do you see Wiggins just performing a normal worker role? Or do you harbour a fantasy of him gaining time and screwing Froome over as "revenge" for that time Froome didn't actually take any time from him?

I don't really think anyone, especially Wiggins, is deluded enough to think that he can beat Froome. He doesn't want to look more of a tit by trying and failing. Think it gives him a good opportunity to pretend to be the bigger/better man by helping out that naughty rascal, with a possible TT stage win as cherry on the cake.

Yellow Peril

I'm not into the whole take Wiggo 'cos he's British and it starts in Britain. sky should take him because he has good form and can do a job for the team. He said he'd ride in support of Froome and I have to take that statement at face value. If he tried something Machiavellian ala Froome 2012 I'd think he was a Tw@t.

In my opinion his ability to do a job for Sky in the TdF still outweigh any team disharmony fears.

sbbefc

I feel a bit sorry for Wiggins more than anything. In the bbc interview you could tell he was gutted, with this ties up north its a shame he wont be racing. He's shrugged off 2013 and given it a right go.

I'm a big Wiggins fan but clearly Froome is the better rider and an exciting rider at that. You can understand the managements thinking though, by all accounts he can be a bit mentally unstable, but with his form and all he has done for cycling in this country I think he is really unlucky.

Without taking account of all the commercial crap he should be there on merit, he could be a big asset to have on the cobbles and the mountains.

tuneskyline

Yellow Peril wrote:

I'm not into the whole take Wiggo 'cos he's British and it starts in Britain. sky should take him because he has good form and can do a job for the team. He said he'd ride in support of Froome and I have to take that statement at face value. If he tried something Machiavellian ala Froome 2012 I'd think he was a Tw@t.

In my opinion his ability to do a job for Sky in the TdF still outweigh any team disharmony fears.

Depends how much disharmony is caused. If Wiggo can't get on with the job he his given without throwing his toys out the pram then he should not go. You don't need that kind of Bulls%%t for 3 weeks. That's why it's called a team.

Yellow Peril

tuneskyline wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I'm not into the whole take Wiggo 'cos he's British and it starts in Britain. sky should take him because he has good form and can do a job for the team. He said he'd ride in support of Froome and I have to take that statement at face value. If he tried something Machiavellian ala Froome 2012 I'd think he was a Tw@t.

In my opinion his ability to do a job for Sky in the TdF still outweigh any team disharmony fears.

Depends how much disharmony is caused. If Wiggo can't get on with the job he his given without throwing his toys out the pram then he should not go. You don't need that kind of Bulls%%t for 3 weeks. That's why it's called a team.

You are right but he said just after the ToC he'd ride for Froome, I'd take him at his word. I believe he'd gain more for showing how he can work for Froome than he would by screwing him over. Remember how much Kudos Cav gained by being a work horse in a WC jersey at the TdF2012

tremayne

Wiggo has genuine presence and I've no doubt that even the frenchies would want him to participate. As for the difference he would make to the uk stages and uk following - I'd call it as significant. Not necessarily for those that have already decided to follow the tour - but for the single most important reason that wiggins in means a UK media extravaganza. Wiggins out will mean good coverage (esp for the uk stages) but nothing like it would or could be. The media will simply not be interested to the same degree - and lack of interest on their part will absolutely follow through to less interest from non-cycle public.

A good enough reason to take him? Probably not. However, he is looking pretty fit right now and that makes it just a little harder.

ianwilliams

Does anyone else think Wiggins/Fuller has basically played a PR blinder here?

Yeah, Wiggins looked gutted but look at Fuller's history of representation in sports. The methods he's used to further his clients' causes haven't always been squeaky clean. The guy is a media puppeteer.

That's why I see Wiggins - a Sky rider, unannounced on the BBC, saying he's out the squad before the squad's been decided - and I think Wiggins/Fuller have been playing you all along. The aim, surely, was to pull the strings, get a reaction, and use public opinion to put Wiggins in the team.

Macaloon

ianwilliams wrote:

Does anyone else think Wiggins/Fuller has basically played a PR blinder here?

Yeah, Wiggins looked gutted but look at Fuller's history of representation in sports. The methods he's used to further his clients' causes haven't always been squeaky clean. The guy is a media puppeteer.

That's why I see Wiggins - a Sky rider, unannounced on the BBC, saying he's out the squad before the squad's been decided - and I think Wiggins/Fuller have been playing you all along. The aim, surely, was to pull the strings, get a reaction, and use public opinion to put Wiggins in the team.

If that's the game, they're a pair of patronising w@nkers.

(What profanity filter?)

cal_stewart

If it turns out as this they've played a blinder

Macaloon

Cal_Stewart wrote:

If it turns out as this they've played a blinder

Except it relies on the team being forced to overrule their undisputed team leader. It has no chance of being anything other than destructive.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

Cal_Stewart wrote:

If it turns out as this they've played a blinder

Except it relies on the team being forced to overrule their undisputed team leader. It has no chance of being anything other than destructive.

Maybe Wiggo would be better at following team orders than Froome.

tuneskyline

Yellow Peril wrote:

tuneskyline wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I'm not into the whole take Wiggo 'cos he's British and it starts in Britain. sky should take him because he has good form and can do a job for the team. He said he'd ride in support of Froome and I have to take that statement at face value. If he tried something Machiavellian ala Froome 2012 I'd think he was a Tw@t.

In my opinion his ability to do a job for Sky in the TdF still outweigh any team disharmony fears.

Depends how much disharmony is caused. If Wiggo can't get on with the job he his given without throwing his toys out the pram then he should not go. You don't need that kind of Bulls%%t for 3 weeks. That's why it's called a team.

You are right but he said just after the ToC he'd ride for Froome, I'd take him at his word. I believe he'd gain more for showing how he can work for Froome than he would by screwing him over. Remember how much Kudos Cav gained by being a work horse in a WC jersey at the TdF2012

I agree , WIggo is in good enough form to make the team. If there was no disharmony. He works for Sky don't forget, opts to do an interview at the BBC. Brailsford has confirmed he has not decided who will ride and Wiggo would know this. So Wiggo has not stirred things up for nothing. He must know he has not be chosen.
In my view he his trying to get public support to pressure Sky to let him ride but could you imagine how the other riders would feel and also the rider who has to miss out. If this is the case as I suspect then he's acting like a prima donna Wazuk.

Macaloon

Joelsim wrote:

Maybe Wiggo would be better at following team orders than Froome.

Pathetic state of affairs for a national legend, and still first British winner of the Tour, to be orchestrating a media campaign against the team and riders that enabled the legend. Sick Idol.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Maybe Wiggo would be better at following team orders than Froome.

Pathetic state of affairs for a national legend, and still first British winner of the Tour, to be orchestrating a media campaign against the team and riders that enabled the legend. Sick Idol.

I can understand it. He is their 2nd best rider, 9 go to the Tour. He knows that he can do a job for the team and he has known DB for years. I too would feel very upset in his position.

iainf72

So why not swallow your pride and try build some bridges? Rather than continuing the communication via proxy of the 2012 Tour?

stagehopper

iainf72 wrote:

So why not swallow your pride and try build some bridges? Rather than continuing the communication via proxy of the 2012 Tour?

We talking about Wiggins or Froome here?

Both come across as childish, petulant kids in this.

iainf72

stagehopper wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So why not swallow your pride and try build some bridges? Rather than continuing the communication via proxy of the 2012 Tour?

We talking about Wiggins or Froome here?

Both come across as childish, petulant kids in this.

wiggins

Coach H

Yellow Peril wrote:

tuneskyline wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I'm not into the whole take Wiggo 'cos he's British and it starts in Britain. sky should take him because he has good form and can do a job for the team. He said he'd ride in support of Froome and I have to take that statement at face value. If he tried something Machiavellian ala Froome 2012 I'd think he was a Tw@t.

In my opinion his ability to do a job for Sky in the TdF still outweigh any team disharmony fears.

Depends how much disharmony is caused. If Wiggo can't get on with the job he his given without throwing his toys out the pram then he should not go. You don't need that kind of Bulls%%t for 3 weeks. That's why it's called a team.

You are right but he said just after the ToC he'd ride for Froome, I'd take him at his word. I believe he'd gain more for showing how he can work for Froome than he would by screwing him over. Remember how much Kudos Cav gained by being a work horse in a WC jersey at the TdF2012

Yellow Peril you have summarised my opinion on the matter almost exactly, thank you.

knedlicky

ianwilliams wrote:

The aim, surely, was to pull the strings

I wrote 7 pages back I thought in the interview Wiggins was pulling the strings; I thought for a different reason, but eitherway, it makes no difference, it was an unworthy manoeuvre (which probably got Brailsford's back up). It may have cost Wiggins any chance he had of being included in the team.

Some here say when he said he was gutted he really looked it. I felt at that part of the interview he almost had those words pulled from him by the interviewer - if the interviewer hadn't remarked that he must be disappointed, he would never thought to utter the word 'gutted'. And to me he looked far from in that state, as he said it.

argyllflyer

The interview was clearly a set-up to let Brad tell a one-sided story and it worked. He did it without permission from Sky, by all accounts, as the message he was sending was not from the team management. It was done to undermine Froome.

Wiggins' word is worth absolutely nothing. He changes his mind about things as often as the wind changes direction (won't ride the Tour again / Giro the focus / Giro Tour double the focus / ToB the focus / California the focus / Making Tour team the focus etc...). He has that right, but it means when he says he promises to be a good boy and hold CF's hand as they zoom round France, a more reflective mind might wonder if it is actually going to come to pass.

The antagonism between them seems such that nothing positive can come out of it. Perhaps if Brailsford had knocked their heads together back in 2012 then the bridges could have been built. But they have raced together three times since then that I recall - Worlds 2012 for JTL, Oman in 2013 (which Froome says BF did bugger all for him in in his book) and the disastrous Florence Worlds in 2013 when BW climbed off as soon as he could. Sky's PR has been a disaster ever since.

They have basically been on different programmes at Sky since the 2012 Tour and you don't go into the biggest race of the season with an untried set-up containing two highly edgy egos, both of whom deep down want to lead despite wafer-thin public utterances to the contrary, and hope for success.

So, I have heard it said that Wiggins' presence will benefit Sky as it means they can send him up the road and force Astana and Tinkoff to chase. Well that's fine, but what if Wiggins' main goal is to ride against his leader or weaken his challenge? Revenge best served cold etc... The situation is a festering, puss-filled boil yet to burst and I can see why Brailsford is keen for that not to happen during the only race of the season the team really cares about.

philbar72

iainf72 wrote:

One for the Wiggins-In camp : If he rode, what would your expectations of him be?

Froome is the leader : Of that there is no doubt. Porte is the number 2 (maybe, maybe not)

Do you see Wiggins just performing a normal worker role? Or do you harbour a fantasy of him gaining time and screwing Froome over as "revenge" for that time Froome didn't actually take any time from him?

I think he'd like to do him over in the TT (Wiggins being the better time triallist). I can't see him being a worker bee though, really for someone he just doesn't get on with.

if however he does, he'd fit into the Mick Rogers role from 2012 i.e. set the tempo at the shallow pitches of the climbs. he'd be excellent at this i think.

above_the_cows

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?

Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?

Depends how you define plastic? How do you define plastic? Why is he any different to other British people?

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.

It seems some people (not you) can't seem to not bring up his nationality and instead use it as a term of abuse.
I don't know why people would do that? It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like Chris Froome' without the need to refer to his nationality in a derogatory manner.

And for the record my sole definition of being British is citizenship, it is a legal construct that is all it is at the end of the day, the rest is whatever anyone else wants it to be and leads to some people deciding who is and who is not 'in' and who is 'out' often for some not very nice reasons. If Chris Froome is legally British then he's British. If other people want to say he's not then it says more about them than it does about Chris Froome.

Actually, I couldn't care less about Chris Froome's nationality. I don't accept him as British, regardless of what passport he holds, but that's not why I dislike him. I've just made an issue of it because I saw the way you reacted to someone else using the term earlier in the week and I thought you were out of order. I don't know who you think you are, but you aren't the arbiter of what's acceptable and what isn't on the forums. You can block someone, or just ignore what they've posted, but if you are going to try and throw your weight around then stand by for incoming because I really don't like you. Or your internet persona if you aren't actually an arrogant ars* in real life.

So you can't or won't actually answer my question about who is or who isn't a plastic Brit? I'm thinking it's that you can't because you realise that in doing this you will mark your cards as a bit of a xenophobe but there we go. If its out of order to call someone out on using nationality to personally attack someone then I am happy to be out of order until the end of my days. I don't like people that do that, I have a thing about xenophobes hiding behind the flag of a patriotism they won't or can't actually define, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel after all.

And you can call me arrogant if you like. I would prefer to think of myself as well just a little bit mature and reflexive and able to actually account for and explain my opinions whereas your modus operandi going on this and past form is to just resort to personal attacks and profanities in the hope of not having to account for your opinions when people call you out on them. But if you see that as arrogant then that says more about you than it does about me.

Coriander

Above The Cows wrote:

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?

Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?

Depends how you define plastic? How do you define plastic? Why is he any different to other British people?

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.

It seems some people (not you) can't seem to not bring up his nationality and instead use it as a term of abuse.
I don't know why people would do that? It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like Chris Froome' without the need to refer to his nationality in a derogatory manner.

And for the record my sole definition of being British is citizenship, it is a legal construct that is all it is at the end of the day, the rest is whatever anyone else wants it to be and leads to some people deciding who is and who is not 'in' and who is 'out' often for some not very nice reasons. If Chris Froome is legally British then he's British. If other people want to say he's not then it says more about them than it does about Chris Froome.

Actually, I couldn't care less about Chris Froome's nationality. I don't accept him as British, regardless of what passport he holds, but that's not why I dislike him. I've just made an issue of it because I saw the way you reacted to someone else using the term earlier in the week and I thought you were out of order. I don't know who you think you are, but you aren't the arbiter of what's acceptable and what isn't on the forums. You can block someone, or just ignore what they've posted, but if you are going to try and throw your weight around then stand by for incoming because I really don't like you. Or your internet persona if you aren't actually an arrogant ars* in real life.

So you can't or won't actually answer my question about who is or who isn't a plastic Brit? I'm thinking it's that you can't because you realise that in doing this you will mark your cards as a bit of a xenophobe but there we go. If its out of order to call someone out on using nationality to personally attack someone then I am happy to be out of order until the end of my days. I don't like people that do that, I have a thing about xenophobes hiding behind the flag of a patriotism they won't or can't actually define, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel after all.

And you can call me arrogant if you like. I would prefer to think of myself as well just a little bit mature and reflexive and able to actually account for and explain my opinions whereas your modus operandi going on this and past form is to just resort to personal attacks and profanities in the hope of not having to account for your opinions when people call you out on them. But if you see that as arrogant then that says more about you than it does about me.

Double post.

Coriander

Above The Cows wrote:

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

TMR wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Why is he plastic? He's British, he has a British passport and he rides under a British license. This makes him British, unless of course your one of those sorts of people who think there are 'different' types of British people because by using the term 'plastic' you are somehow suggesting he is different from non-plastic British people? So who are plastic British people and who are non-plastic British people?

Touched a nerve have I? Are you plastic as well?

Depends how you define plastic? How do you define plastic? Why is he any different to other British people?

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes he's a British citizen but for many people he isn't actually British any more than Zola Budd was British. He has never lived here, he is unlikely to settle here after his career, he didn't come through the British cycling system, there is no evidence he has any real affinity for the country at all. Yes if your sole definition of being British is having citizenship then he's as British as I am - if your definition is more nuanced then he isn't. I don't think the Britishness thing is why a lot of people don't like him though - plenty of my favourite riders aren't British - it's more the way he acts.

It seems some people (not you) can't seem to not bring up his nationality and instead use it as a term of abuse.
I don't know why people would do that? It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like Chris Froome' without the need to refer to his nationality in a derogatory manner.

And for the record my sole definition of being British is citizenship, it is a legal construct that is all it is at the end of the day, the rest is whatever anyone else wants it to be and leads to some people deciding who is and who is not 'in' and who is 'out' often for some not very nice reasons. If Chris Froome is legally British then he's British. If other people want to say he's not then it says more about them than it does about Chris Froome.

Actually, I couldn't care less about Chris Froome's nationality. I don't accept him as British, regardless of what passport he holds, but that's not why I dislike him. I've just made an issue of it because I saw the way you reacted to someone else using the term earlier in the week and I thought you were out of order. I don't know who you think you are, but you aren't the arbiter of what's acceptable and what isn't on the forums. You can block someone, or just ignore what they've posted, but if you are going to try and throw your weight around then stand by for incoming because I really don't like you. Or your internet persona if you aren't actually an arrogant ars* in real life.

So you can't or won't actually answer my question about who is or who isn't a plastic Brit? I'm thinking it's that you can't because you realise that in doing this you will mark your cards as a bit of a xenophobe but there we go. If its out of order to call someone out on using nationality to personally attack someone then I am happy to be out of order until the end of my days. I don't like people that do that, I have a thing about xenophobes hiding behind the flag of a patriotism they won't or can't actually define, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel after all.

And you can call me arrogant if you like. I would prefer to think of myself as well just a little bit mature and reflexive and able to actually account for and explain my opinions whereas your modus operandi going on this and past form is to just resort to personal attacks and profanities in the hope of not having to account for your opinions when people call you out on them. But if you see that as arrogant then that says more about you than it does about me.

Brava, m'dear.

Richmond Racer

argyllflyer wrote:

The interview was clearly a set-up to let Brad tell a one-sided story and it worked. He did it without permission from Sky, by all accounts, as the message he was sending was not from the team management. It was done to undermine Froome.

Wiggins' word is worth absolutely nothing. He changes his mind about things as often as the wind changes direction (won't ride the Tour again / Giro the focus / Giro Tour double the focus / ToB the focus / California the focus / Making Tour team the focus etc...). He has that right, but it means when he says he promises to be a good boy and hold CF's hand as they zoom round France, a more reflective mind might wonder if it is actually going to come to pass.

The antagonism between them seems such that nothing positive can come out of it. Perhaps if Brailsford had knocked their heads together back in 2012 then the bridges could have been built. But they have raced together three times since then that I recall - Worlds 2012 for JTL, Oman in 2013 (which Froome says BF did bugger all for him in in his book) and the disastrous Florence Worlds in 2013 when BW climbed off as soon as he could. Sky's PR has been a disaster ever since.

They have basically been on different programmes at Sky since the 2012 Tour and you don't go into the biggest race of the season with an untried set-up containing two highly edgy egos, both of whom deep down want to lead despite wafer-thin public utterances to the contrary, and hope for success.

So, I have heard it said that Wiggins' presence will benefit Sky as it means they can send him up the road and force Astana and Tinkoff to chase. Well that's fine, but what if Wiggins' main goal is to ride against his leader or weaken his challenge? Revenge best served cold etc... The situation is a festering, puss-filled boil yet to burst and I can see why Brailsford is keen for that not to happen during the only race of the season the team really cares about.

I do agree with some of this. A couple of comments:

Yes, Wiggins does change his mind a lot. But his goals for this year have actually been consistent from early season onwards: do a decent P-R AND try to win AToC AND make the Tour team AND the Worlds TT (and now Commies too). At no point has any of this been positioned as exclusive.

That 2013 Tour of Oman race would be the same race covered by Richard Moore for Mar/Apr 2013 CycleSport, in which he mentioned that riders from several teams mentioned how surprised they were to see how much (donkey) work Wiggins had been doing for Froome on the stages?

But we should believe what Froome says in his book. Because after all autobios are never written in a way to 1) paint the subject in the best possible light 2) try to depict the subject's bete noires in the worst possible light.

Everyone's trying to pull strings here. Froome with his book and subsequent interviews, as well as other stuff; Wiggins with his l'Equipe and BBC interviews; and Brailsford with his not very convincing 'I'm in charge' thang.

Incidentally, alongside Walsh's exclusive quotes from Brailsford in the ST, was another Walsh piece in which he details the sorry history of the Wiggins-Froome relationship and expains why Brailford has had to come to the decsion to leave Wiggins out of the team. Not why he might - but why he has.

Spokedoke had it right in his blog:
'The riders are only doing what they can to protect their own positions, after all other avenues have failed, I blame the team, not either rider. Dave Brailsford lost the changing room a long time ago, fluffy management & a failure to imagine the consequences of that are now hugely evident, it looks like madness to not have dealt with conflicts a long time ago.'


re this situation Brailsford should just MTFU, confirm Wiggins isnt in the team, explain it however he wants, and just own it. Get on with it, Brailsford.

(Mind, this is the same Brailsford who oversaw Andy Tennant being told just 30 mins before the 2012 Worlds Mens TP final that he wouldnt be riding, so no one should really be surprised)

Pross

iainf72 wrote:

One for the Wiggins-In camp : If he rode, what would your expectations of him be?

Froome is the leader : Of that there is no doubt. Porte is the number 2 (maybe, maybe not)

Do you see Wiggins just performing a normal worker role? Or do you harbour a fantasy of him gaining time and screwing Froome over as "revenge" for that time Froome didn't actually take any time from him?

For me I just want to see him ride strongly in support, probably in the role Froome performed for him in 2012 i.e. be there as long as required and not necessarily driving the train up the first half of the final climb. Being there as back up if anything goes wrong early (not for the win, that's beyond him on this route and with this field but maybe a top 5). Basically, being prominent and showing he can be a contender and good team player and possibly behaving like the 'better man' than Froome did. Mainly just to see he riding at a big race like he cares about it again!

ManOfKent

Pross wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

One for the Wiggins-In camp : If he rode, what would your expectations of him be?

Froome is the leader : Of that there is no doubt. Porte is the number 2 (maybe, maybe not)

Do you see Wiggins just performing a normal worker role? Or do you harbour a fantasy of him gaining time and screwing Froome over as "revenge" for that time Froome didn't actually take any time from him?

For me I just want to see him ride strongly in support, probably in the role Froome performed for him in 2012 i.e. be there as long as required and not necessarily driving the train up the first half of the final climb. Being there as back up if anything goes wrong early (not for the win, that's beyond him on this route and with this field but maybe a top 5). Basically, being prominent and showing he can be a contender and good team player and possibly behaving like the 'better man' than Froome did. Mainly just to see he riding at a big race like he cares about it again!

I agree with every word of this.

Whatever DB says, the decision has surely been made if, as Wiggins claimed, he wasn't part of the reconnaissance trip to France.

symo

Anyone read the Froome piece in Saturdays Times Magazine?
They even photo'd him looking moody. Still a boring interview.

The article in the The Times paper bit was more interesting. Basically the murdoch machine justifying to the sheeple that Wiggins won't be in the TdF because he isn't good enough/team player. Not Froome is the current spoilt child.

the article don

Froome was also in the Guaridan magazine on Saturday. He was boring there too.