-
She did talk some silly stuff, making a great fuss of what Sean Kelly said (he uses unbelievable about as often as 'make the calculation') and then talking about how form cannot improve during a three week grand tour.
Given how badly Yates cracked, he form over the first two and bit weeks must be looked at riding in the red, while Froome was riding within himself, so he will always look poor against someone burning themselves out. During those two weeks all the dark mutterings were about Yates being on the sauce because he was smashing everyone.
For the hyperbole of Froome being down and out and how Contador recognised that and said Froome should retire, Froome limited his losses early on, then he won on the Zoncolan, then had a decent ITT. At the start of stage 19 he was fourth still.
Jimmy_Fingers-
She did talk some silly stuff, making a great fuss of what Sean Kelly said (he uses unbelievable about as often as 'make the calculation') and then talking about how form cannot improve during a three week grand tour.
Yeah the form thing is questionable, but then I've never rode a GT so I can't situate that in any kind of experience.
Playing devils advocate-the phrase 'unbelievable' was used by far more people than Kelly following stage 19. Would choosing one of them made the discussion of the believability of the ride more palateable?
I read the article as quite off the cuff and discursive of the polemic surrounding the stage rather than any kind of forensic analysis of the performance proper, but maybe I'm blinkered.
deleted
in what sense? Bottom line was an emphatic "I have no idea" if Froome is doping or not going on what she saw of the race and her opinion of the tactics etc. Unless just by discussing it and refusing to rule it out she's making an accusation?