Froome latest .

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
Nah he'll be back,I'm certain.

I'm sure he will attempt to return unless he gets some very strong medical advice not to do so. The issue is whether he will ever be good enough again to win a GT. I doubt it. I'd like him to retire "on top" and not try to make a comeback and be an also ran
 
OP
OP
Adam4868

Adam4868

Guru
I'm sure he will attempt to return unless he gets some very strong medical advice not to do so. The issue is whether he will ever be good enough again to win a GT. I doubt it. I'd like him to retire "on top" and not try to make a comeback and be an also ran
I know what you mean Nick,but if humanely possible I believe he'll be back and at top level.Luke Rowe had a "career ending " leg break and he's flying again.One thing Froome has is determination and plenty of it.
Put your money on him winning the 2020 tour now !
 

KneesUp

Guru
I know what you mean Nick,but if humanely possible I believe he'll be back and at top level.Luke Rowe had a "career ending " leg break and he's flying again.One thing Froome has is determination and plenty of it.
Put your money on him winning the 2020 tour now !
I don't doubt his determination at all - he had a battle to even be in the pro ranks. But all the other riders are determined too, and most of them haven't had two open fractures including a femur (although details on the injuries seem a little sketchy) - and critically, most of them won't be 35 by the start of next year's GT season.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
I don't doubt his determination at all - he had a battle to even be in the pro ranks. But all the other riders are determined too, and most of them haven't had two open fractures including a femur (although details on the injuries seem a little sketchy) - and critically, most of them won't be 35 by the start of next year's GT season.
I was reading recently about Lemond's return after his shooting accident. The perceived wisdom at the time was that it took double the time you were laid off to get back to where you started.
 

KneesUp

Guru
I was reading recently about Lemond's return after his shooting accident. The perceived wisdom at the time was that it took double the time you were laid off to get back to where you started.
Blimey - to be fair, Lemond still has lead shot in his heart. Didn't he say that the six weeks he won the Tours in 89 and 90 were the only weeks post-accident that he felt good on a bike, or something?

(also it's strange how Lemond's comeback from almost dying and then winning the Tour didn't capture the imagination like Armstrong's)

EDIT - found the quote - "I figure I had three months that went right for me after the hunting accident," - three months in which he won the two Tours and a world road race championship. "The rest were just pure suffering, struggling, fatigue, always tired."
 
Last edited:

ColinJ

Puzzle game procrastinator!
Blimey - to be fair, Lemond still has lead shot in his heart. Didn't he say that the six weeks he won the Tours in 89 and 90 were the only weeks post-accident that he felt good on a bike, or something?

(also it's strange how Lemond's comeback from almost dying and then winning the Tour didn't capture the imagination like Armstrong's)

EDIT - found the quote - "I figure I had three months that went right for me after the hunting accident," - three months in which he won the two Tours and a world road race championship. "The rest were just pure suffering, struggling, fatigue, always tired."
It certainly captured my imagination... I watched the 1989 Tour de France after spending 20 years not cycling. It inspired me so much that I went out and bought a bike and have been attacking Yorkshire's hills for the 30 years since that race! :okay:

PS And Armstrong did NOT inspire me - I was almost certain that he was cheating from the first time I saw him destroy the best pros in the world. Nobody is naturally that much better than the best of the rest!
 
Last edited:

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
The 'winner' is still the winner no matter how far you have to go, though.
As I understand it, the trouble is that they have to go so low to avoid probable dopers now that the "winner" would be under a cloud of suspicion because of how few random tests the majority of the peloton took back then, pre-passport (which started in 2002) and pre-whereabouts (2004). It's a shame and largely the fault of Hein and Pat IMO, but what's done is done.
 

KneesUp

Guru
As I understand it, the trouble is that they have to go so low to avoid probable dopers now that the "winner" would be under a cloud of suspicion because of how few random tests the majority of the peloton took back then, pre-passport (which started in 2002) and pre-whereabouts (2004). It's a shame and largely the fault of Hein and Pat IMO, but what's done is done.
But that is basically saying that the testing was not suitable to tell who was cheating which means that cheating was rampant ergo you sort of can't blame those who cheated. It also seems unfair to strip one rider but not the others.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
But that is basically saying that the testing was not suitable to tell who was cheating which means that cheating was rampant ergo you sort of can't blame those who cheated. It also seems unfair to strip one rider but not the others.
Whoa, that's a big last step there, that "you sort of can't blame those who cheated [because the testing was not yet developed enough to catch all cheats]". I think that's a jump too far.

Refusing to award Lance's titles to less-tested riders is indeed saying that the testing back then was inadequate, but I think almost everyone knows that about the days of the so-called "two-speed peloton", don't we?
 
Top Bottom