Froome's Data
Comments
-
If i have pre judged El Gross Bastardo incorrectly then fine...I'm not convinced I have though...
Have a Celebration from my Crimbo choccie tin :P
Cmon, lets have a laugh at Coco the Clown Vayer instead0 -
Basically the situation is this:
The case for the defence has been made. Froome over the years has been more obliging than any other stage race you could name. It is time for the defence to rest.
What we know need to hear is the coherent case for the prosecution. As Froome moves into his sixth season of success, the prosecution's case still looks mighty thin on the ground despite an army of online researchers constantly testing for a weak point like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
Suspicions of someone due to the past actions of others is fine, but after a time, if those suspicions aren't supported then suspicions that remain become prejudices.
Completely agree. Time to put this to bed otherwise it just becomes a self-fulfilling soap opera. If thats what everyone wants then go and watch Eastenders.
Fat % this....weight that....power this and that...jesus. Anyone interested in cycling by any chance?
:roll:
shall we talk fat bikes?
0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757472#p19757472]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757464#p19757464]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skills
You're spending time trying to defend something which I really don't think was being attacked on this forum - that's my point. He was carrying a higher body fat compo that was standard. That's all - a curiosity, no more. As per his Aug test, even though that was a lot lower as his body has gone through a transformation over the years (ref his weight), it showed that he stores fat around the organs and shizz. Shrug.
If the Clinic loons want to attack it, so be it. But I dont think its being attacked here.
Without evidence it's all really a moot point. He says 17% body fat but has no evidence, photos don't help either so it's not much use. The problem is that as cycling fans, we have been lied to so many times that without concrete proof it is hard to believe.
What would constitute concrete proof? And even if this was available, some people with their fixed-view and agenda would still not re-consider their position.
Pearls before swine. He's gone above and beyond, and if that's not good enough for some people, then f*** 'em.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
They can test what they like. No objection against Henao was raised by the UCI or WADA. They could have just stayed silent.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport,
There's nothing wrong with that. It's common ownership that's not allowed. e.g. Katusha/Rusvelo[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race,
That never actually happened[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc
You should have mentioned them then, rather than the wrong ones you did.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail.
No it isn't[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Maybe the reason you are so sceptical is your information is mostly wrongTwitter: @RichN950 -
How does this clown hold down a job as a PE teacher? Unless its the same school as Digger's, I suppose
EDIT: oh noes, that looks like I'm calling Joel a clown...soz Joel :oops:0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757476#p19757476]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Basically the situation is this:
The case for the defence has been made. Froome over the years has been more obliging than any other stage race you could name. It is time for the defence to rest.
What we know need to hear is the coherent case for the prosecution. As Froome moves into his sixth season of success, the prosecution's case still looks mighty thin on the ground despite an army of online researchers constantly testing for a weak point like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
Suspicions of someone due to the past actions of others is fine, but after a time, if those suspicions aren't supported then suspicions that remain become prejudices.
Completely agree. Time to put this to bed otherwise it just becomes a self-fulfilling soap opera. If thats what everyone wants then go and watch Eastenders.
Fat % this....weight that....power this and that...jesus. Anyone interested in cycling by any chance?
:roll:
shall we talk fat bikes?
Ha Ha...
0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757438#p19757438]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Without wanting to go back into Lance, he doped, it was a period of time where everyone had to.
On a completely different note there are some lobotomies on Twatter tonight. I despair.
That thinking is part of the problem. Everyone didn't have to and Armstrong didn't 'level the playing field' by cheating. There are scores of riders who lost careers in the 90s because of cheats taking their spots on teams. Clean riders have been losing out to doped riders for years and it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s. It's no surprise that a rider living in Monaco being told towards the end of the season that there is no place for him in the team next year would speak to his coach who managed a big result on EPO and try another way to save his career. The system is the problem, not really the riders and it's counter productive to shout down the guys pointing out the obvious as they are only trying to clean up the sport. Unlike the UCI!
You're right, the system is the problem and if the system is failing then some will take advantage of it, and then others will to be able to compete, and then so will most of the others. I suspect very few of them really want to dope in order to be able to compete, but back then if the 15% benefit is to be believed then there is no choice. That appears to have improved.
The difference, at it's most extreme is being able to compete or being dropped by your team. Some teams get a free pass with backdated TUEs etc, others get busted and thrown to the lions. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You've forgotten to include the grassy knoll.
There is no evidence of preferential treatment in the current peloton/UCI management.
Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport, allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race, allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail. Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Backdated? I think not. Check your facts.
Sky also highlighted Henao's blood irregularities and withdrew him from racing. How many other teams would do that?
In essence, if you think Sky get preferential treatment then that's your call, it's not true, but it's your call.0 -
I'm glad to see Ferrari agrees with my earlier post that Froome's relatively low heart rates at high power outputs is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of his lab tests - indicating massive heart stroke volume and "cardiac efficiency", as Ferrari refers to it (now I can't decide if I missed my vocation as a sports scientist or doping guru…).
Why aren't more people discussing that - rather than all the spurious guff?
I wonder if Ferrari wrote that article on a computer that he went out and purchased the day after one of Armstrong's payments for EPO cleared. What a massive worm.0 -
If there were laws against common sponsorship, Shimano could halve it's marketing budget."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I'm glad to see Ferrari agrees with my earlier post that Froome's relatively low heart rates at high power outputs is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of his lab tests - indicating massive heart stroke volume and "cardiac efficiency", as Ferrari refers to it (now I can't decide if I missed my vocation as a sports scientist or doping guru…).
Why aren't more people discussing that - rather than all the spurious guff?
I wonder if Ferrari wrote that article on a computer that he went out and purchased the day after one of Armstrong's payments for EPO cleared. What a massive worm.
Whilst I'm tired of all this debate, I will say thats a very fair point to pick out the low heart rate. Seb Coe had this exact same thing, he could run full pelt and yet his heart rate was relatively low, hence why he could sustain a higher rate of tempo. I think i read somewhere his resting heart rate was something stupid like 35 beats a minute, so when he did put the effort in it only went up to what most good athletes only start at.
I guess every now and then some people are just exceptional and the masses just have to accept it.0 -
They can test what they like. No objection against Henao was raised by the UCI or WADA. They could have just stayed silent.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport,
There's nothing wrong with that. It's common ownership that's not allowed. e.g. Katusha/Rusvelo[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race,
That never actually happened[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc
You should have mentioned them then, rather than the wrong ones you did.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail.
No it isn't[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Maybe the reason you are so sceptical is your information is mostly wrong
Well said Rich. Unfortunately the anti-Froome/Sky brigade can only quote 'facts' that aren't correct as those 'facts' that are correct don't support their views.
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757485#p19757485]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:If there were laws against common sponsorship, Shimano could halve it's marketing budget.
Was there a rule around named sponsors, e.g. you couldn't have Sky-Shimano and Katusha-Shimano (to use silly examples)? I'm not so sure now I've written that...0 -
The Clinic is just silly now. As far as I can tell they are suggesting that Sky is engaged in a cover up on the scale of the moon landings; buying off all the labs doing testing*, buying off the UCI, manipulating the GSK lab, making up the 2007 test results etc etc etc.
I did see an interesting idea that they do a version of the Truman Show with Froome, which definitely sounds like a good idea.
At a bit of a loss as to why Coggan would post on there really.
*hence why Froome's not been caught for AICAR, which he's definitely doing even though it isn't even proven to work on humans0 -
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.
Yeah, for me I find it strange that after this amount of time there are no whispers or allegations from ex-teammates or anything like that - all we have on Froome is a bunch of speculation.
Although if you buy into the Sky conspiracy theory that's probably because Rupert Murdoch is spending the entire News Corp budget on keeping people quiet.0 -
They can test what they like. No objection against Henao was raised by the UCI or WADA. They could have just stayed silent.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport,
There's nothing wrong with that. It's common ownership that's not allowed. e.g. Katusha/Rusvelo[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race,
That never actually happened[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc
You should have mentioned them then, rather than the wrong ones you did.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail.
No it isn't[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Maybe the reason you are so sceptical is your information is mostly wrong
Well said Rich. Unfortunately the anti-Froome/Sky brigade can only quote 'facts' that aren't correct as those 'facts' that are correct don't support their views.
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.
Check your facts before getting so defensive. 2 teams with the same title sponsors aren't allowed in the same race - see the Astana world tour team and their pro tour feeder team aren't allowed in the same race, Rapha Condor Sharp had to change their name so that they could be in the sae race as Garmin Sharp. Other teams have been allowed to compete in the same races with apparent UCI blessing.
We are talking about a different backdated TUE so calm down on that one.
As for the UCI - let me know how many staff changes there were after McQuaid left. As far as one can tell, the same jobs are being done by the same people, same medical committee, tech committee, track committee, road committee etc etc.
I'm just pro fair play, not anti-Froome. Although it does affect the sports credibility to see someone who went from so terrible to tour winner in just a few months.
Remember the Armstrong days when his fans would not see the wood for the trees. Don't go making the same mistakes as they did.0 -
I have no idea whether or not this is true, but coming as it does from you, I suppose it's pointless asking for actual evidence...[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757401#p19757401]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:it's even getting worse on the domestic scene in the UK. Doping there is far worse now than in the 90s.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757472#p19757472]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757464#p19757464]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Well maybe, but as Rich points out,it's not actually that big a deal and further, it is not something that raises any concerns to anyone with actual genuine knowledge, it's just more snark.
Guy from Africa goes to Switzerland and indulges in a bit too much chocolate and cheese - big whoop. I suspect that attitude is a hell of a lot more healthy than telling a 14 year old boy that he has to be borderline anorexic to ride for his village team. No different from the Northern/Southern Hemisphere appraoch to just bulking up/developing skills
You're spending time trying to defend something which I really don't think was being attacked on this forum - that's my point. He was carrying a higher body fat compo that was standard. That's all - a curiosity, no more. As per his Aug test, even though that was a lot lower as his body has gone through a transformation over the years (ref his weight), it showed that he stores fat around the organs and shizz. Shrug.
If the Clinic loons want to attack it, so be it. But I dont think its being attacked here.
Without evidence it's all really a moot point. He says 17% body fat but has no evidence, photos don't help either so it's not much use. The problem is that as cycling fans, we have been lied to so many times that without concrete proof it is hard to believe.
There's never going to be concrete proof, you know that as well as we all do. But as yet there is no evidence on Sky or Froome, unlike many other teams and riders who have frequently been caught with their hands in the medicine cabinet.
When that happens, let's then accuse but at the moment we don't have a GB Postal, nor another Lance, although admittedly there are many who seem to want there to be.
RichN95 summed it up very nicely in his post beginning 'Basically the situation is this'0 -
This is a picture of him taken about three weeks after the date on the 2007 report. It's at the Mi Aout Bretonne race (which he won). The other guy is Michel Theze, coach at WCC
Hard to judge much from that photo - my first thought was that he looks reasonably lean in it - as much as you can tell from someone in two jerseys and trackie bottoms. He's not in Ullrich style early season comedy territory.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757514#p19757514]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:
They can test what they like. No objection against Henao was raised by the UCI or WADA. They could have just stayed silent.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Apart from allowing a team to conduct its own research into the effects altitude has on the biopassport,
There's nothing wrong with that. It's common ownership that's not allowed. e.g. Katusha/Rusvelo[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing teams that share sponsors in the same race,
That never actually happened[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:allowing backdated TUEs to explain cortisone usage, etc, etc
You should have mentioned them then, rather than the wrong ones you did.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:There are plenty of others but this isn't the thread to go into detail.
No it isn't[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757463#p19757463]Rodrego Hernandez[/url] wrote:Remember, the UCI is still run by the same people.
Maybe the reason you are so sceptical is your information is mostly wrong
Well said Rich. Unfortunately the anti-Froome/Sky brigade can only quote 'facts' that aren't correct as those 'facts' that are correct don't support their views.
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.
Check your facts before getting so defensive. 2 teams with the same title sponsors aren't allowed in the same race - see the Astana world tour team and their pro tour feeder team aren't allowed in the same race, Rapha Condor Sharp had to change their name so that they could be in the sae race as Garmin Sharp. Other teams have been allowed to compete in the same races with apparent UCI blessing.
We are talking about a different backdated TUE so calm down on that one.
As for the UCI - let me know how many staff changes there were after McQuaid left. As far as one can tell, the same jobs are being done by the same people, same medical committee, tech committee, track committee, road committee etc etc.
I'm just pro fair play, not anti-Froome. Although it does affect the sports credibility to see someone who went from so terrible to tour winner in just a few months.
Remember the Armstrong days when his fans would not see the wood for the trees. Don't go making the same mistakes as they did.
Rodrego, this post says everything about your views. Scratching around for non-existent 'evidence'. I don't know whether Froome is clean or not, but as yet there is nothing to suggest he isn't apart from speculation.
All the evidence suggests that he was picked up by Sky as a young rider with huge potential, stunning physiology, a rookie without the requisite training and know-how, who then raced as a dom, had patchy results, was ill, had a breakthrough in 2011 and has consistently performed well since. In none of the races has he demonstrated out-of-this-world performance, in fact he has always tailed off in the 3rd week of a GT as expected. He has never been linked with any doping, just presumed guilty - that is way different than Armstrong who was heavily linked with doping on numerous occasions throughout his career.0 -
Interestingly (or not) a bit of sleuthing on Theze reveals his comments on the 2007 tests (given in an article apparently published in July 2013*). Theze recalled Froome's VO2 as around 80 to 85 at the time.
* Link attached for French speakers
http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/rue89-sport/2013/07/21/remporte-tour-france-chris-froome-lanomalie-2443900 -
The 'fact' we do know is true is that Sir Dave Brailsford is the luckiest man alive, as since he started at BC over a decade ago there hasn't been a single instance suggesting he is complicit in doping. Given he obviously dopes his whole team that is incredibly lucky. Maybe all the whistleblowers are just waiting for the right moment, there must be hundreds and thousands of them by now.
Yeah, for me I find it strange that after this amount of time there are no whispers or allegations from ex-teammates or anything like that - all we have on Froome is a bunch of speculation.
Although if you buy into the Sky conspiracy theory that's probably because Rupert Murdoch is spending the entire News Corp budget on keeping people quiet.
Getting it right, when they were unable to suppress the phone-hacking exposure...0 -
Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Should make a better race then.0 -
Deleted - life is too short!0
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney0 -
Basically the situation is this:
The case for the defence has been made. Froome over the years has been more obliging than any other stage race you could name. It is time for the defence to rest.
What we know need to hear is the coherent case for the prosecution. As Froome moves into his sixth season of success, the prosecution's case still looks mighty thin on the ground despite an army of online researchers constantly testing for a weak point like the raptors in Jurassic Park.
Suspicions of someone due to the past actions of others is fine, but after a time, if those suspicions aren't supported then suspicions that remain become prejudices.
I think it's clear the defence would win in such a trial. However, although your point about suspicions based on past actions of others is fine, I don't blame people for questioning the surprise improvement in 2011 (as long as it's civil).0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Using Ferrari's estimate of Froome's daily weight gain since the Tour (1628kcal - or 180g), he'll have put on 37.5kg of pure fat by the start of TDU.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757593#p19757593]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757581#p19757581]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19757576#p19757576]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Much more of this and I may even look forward to the Tour Down Under
Talking of which, Aussies currently muttering disconsolately over the lack of big names lining up for it next year
Curiously I was thinking the field was looking better than in previous years already.
You're thinking of the money you're going to make when your bet comes in #thistimenextyearRodney
Using Ferrari's estimate of Froome's daily weight gain since the Tour (1628kcal - or 180g), he'll have put on 37.5kg of pure fat by the start of TDU.
He's not starting his season till Feb (Herald Sun Tour) so by that point, they'll need a crane to lift him onto his stem0
