• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1004 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Benotti69 said:
Alpe73 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M
Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

For goodness sake, how long is this particular debate about potential going to rumble on.

From the day Chris Froome was born, he had the potential (capacity) to win at least 4 TDF's and one Vuelta. This is a fact now proven by history.

We can debate until the end of time about if/why he never showed that potential until 2011, and what means he employed to fulfil the potential eg, even if we assume he took every doping product known to man, had a 500cc motor in his bike and paid off all the authorities to cover up every test he ever failed, he still had the capacity (capacity equals potential) to stoop to such levels.

You cannot deny history, and you cannot say someone never had the potential to achieve what they have now gone on to achieve.

Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D
 
Re: Re:

[/quote]
Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson[/quote]

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?[/quote]

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.[/quote]

For goodness sake, how long is this particular debate about potential going to rumble on.

From the day Chris Froome was born, he had the potential (capacity) to win at least 4 TDF's and one Vuelta. This is a fact now proven by history.

We can debate until the end of time about if/why he never showed that potential until 2011, and what means he employed to fulfil the potential eg, even if we assume he took every doping product known to man, had a 500cc motor in his bike and paid off all the authorities to cover up every test he ever failed, he still had the capacity (capacity equals potential) to stoop to such levels.

You cannot deny history, and you cannot say someone never had the potential to achieve what they have now gone on to achieve.[/quote]

Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D[/quote]

Im not the one trying to deny history, or the likelihood that Froome doped. My point is just this in response to those who say Froome had no potential; With or without doping, Froome had the potential to be great, even if he needed to resort to extreme cheating to achieve that potential.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D
I'm glad you mention it again.
Multiple TdFs historically have been won by athletes with exceptional talent.
Froome part of that cohort of talent. :)
You want me to list them out? :lol: :lol:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
[quote="
Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D

I'm glad you mention it again.
Multiple TdFs historically have been won by athletes with exceptional talent.
Froome part of that cohort of talent. :)
You want me to list them out? :lol: :lol:

If you want to compare Froome to the Merckx's, Coppi, Anquetils's etc, who all doped, but who all showed talent early.

Froome only commonality with other TdF winners is as a doper. Talent? Nope.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Im not the one trying to deny history, or the likelihood that Froome doped. My point is just this in response to those who say Froome had no potential; With or without doping, Froome had the potential to be great, even if he needed to resort to extreme cheating to achieve that potential.

Going to extreme cheating to get outside help does not achieve one's potential.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
[quote="
Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D

I'm glad you mention it again.
Multiple TdFs historically have been won by athletes with exceptional talent.
Froome part of that cohort of talent. :)
You want me to list them out? :lol:

If you want to compare Froome to the Merckx's, Coppi, Anquetils's etc, who all doped, but who all showed talent early.

Froome only commonality with other TdF winners is as a doper. Talent? Nope.
I didnt start the comparison. You cant have the cake and eat it too.
Talent is another commonality. You can choose to ignore. Not my problem.

Multiple winners of the Tour de France general classification
Cyclist Total Years
Jacques Anquetil (FRA) 5 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Eddy Merckx (BEL) 5 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974
Bernard Hinault (FRA) 5 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985
Miguel Indurain (ESP) 5 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
Chris Froome (GBR) 4 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017
Philippe Thys (BEL) 3 1913, 1914, 1920
Louison Bobet (FRA) 3 1953, 1954, 1955
Greg LeMond (USA) 3 1986, 1989, 1990
Lucien Petit-Breton (FRA) 2 1907, 1908
Firmin Lambot (BEL) 2 1919, 1922
Ottavio Bottecchia (ITA) 2 1924, 1925
Nicolas Frantz (LUX) 2 1927, 1928
André Leducq (FRA) 2 1930, 1932
Antonin Magne (FRA) 2 1931, 1934
Sylvère Maes (BEL) 2 1936, 1939
Gino Bartali (ITA) 2 1938, 1948
Fausto Coppi (ITA) 2 1949, 1952
Bernard Thévenet (FRA) 2 1975, 1977
Laurent Fignon (FRA) 2 1983, 1984
Alberto Contador (ESP)[D] 2 2007, 2009

All the names mentioned have won because they were special. They had what it takes.
Every one on the list has/had talent. Proving that all of them doped would be a much tougher task. :razz:
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
brownbobby said:
Im not the one trying to deny history, or the likelihood that Froome doped. My point is just this in response to those who say Froome had no potential; With or without doping, Froome had the potential to be great, even if he needed to resort to extreme cheating to achieve that potential.

Going to extreme cheating to get outside help does not achieve one's potential.

Depends really wether you're just talking about potential in terms of natural physiology which is just one narrow definition, or the wider definition of capacity to achieve by whatever means necessary.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Re:

rick james said:
It’s funny now that the argument seems to be that froome dawg didn’t show any talent when he was younger
Hilarious because it's not even an argument? He had pro-conti level of talent and somehow got a ride in the WT that he was about to lose.

John Swanson
 
Re:

rick james said:
No one wins clean.......apparently

I doubt doping has ever been properly defined in this forum - For me doping is using prohibited substances - But most athletes will use substances in which the performance enhancing qualities are unknown at the time by WADA - Or they will use a cocktail of substances which enhance performance - Or you use new substances straight off the shelf - As this group is not YET on the banned list its not DOPING - So i expect some throw around the word doping to include banned and non-banned substances.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
rick james said:
No one wins clean.......apparently

I doubt doping has ever been properly defined in this forum - For me doping is using prohibited substances - But most athletes will use substances in which the performance enhancing qualities are unknown at the time by WADA - Or they will use a cocktail of substances which enhance performance - Or you use new substances straight off the shelf - As this group is not YET on the banned list its not DOPING - So i expect some throw around the world doping to include banned and non-banned substances.
If the CIRC report established one thing it established once and for all that we all mean something different when we say doping.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
[quote="
Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D

I'm glad you mention it again.
Multiple TdFs historically have been won by athletes with exceptional talent.
Froome part of that cohort of talent. :)
You want me to list them out? :lol:

If you want to compare Froome to the Merckx's, Coppi, Anquetils's etc, who all doped, but who all showed talent early.

Froome only commonality with other TdF winners is as a doper. Talent? Nope.
I didnt start the comparison. You cant have the cake and eat it too.
Talent is another commonality. You can choose to ignore. Not my problem.

Multiple winners of the Tour de France general classification
Cyclist Total Years
Jacques Anquetil (FRA) 5 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Eddy Merckx (BEL) 5 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974
Bernard Hinault (FRA) 5 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985
Miguel Indurain (ESP) 5 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
Chris Froome (GBR) 4 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017
Philippe Thys (BEL) 3 1913, 1914, 1920
Louison Bobet (FRA) 3 1953, 1954, 1955
Greg LeMond (USA) 3 1986, 1989, 1990
Lucien Petit-Breton (FRA) 2 1907, 1908
Firmin Lambot (BEL) 2 1919, 1922
Ottavio Bottecchia (ITA) 2 1924, 1925
Nicolas Frantz (LUX) 2 1927, 1928
André Leducq (FRA) 2 1930, 1932
Antonin Magne (FRA) 2 1931, 1934
Sylvère Maes (BEL) 2 1936, 1939
Gino Bartali (ITA) 2 1938, 1948
Fausto Coppi (ITA) 2 1949, 1952
Bernard Thévenet (FRA) 2 1975, 1977
Laurent Fignon (FRA) 2 1983, 1984
Alberto Contador (ESP)[D] 2 2007, 2009

All the names mentioned have won because they were special. They had what it takes.
Every one on the list has/had talent. Proving that all of them doped would be a much tougher task. :razz:

Not really. History has shown that doping is an integral part of winning a GT. In fact a rider cannot win a GT clean beating dopers in the process. Not possible. Given the history of anti-doping we know that the doeprs are way ahead so another reason* that GTs are not won by clean riders. Given that we know that anti-doping is woefully underfunded, under applied, lack of robust testing, lack of testing , lack of transparency, lack of independence is another reason GTs are not winnable clean. Considering anti-doping only came in the late 60s every rider before then doped with impunity, after they continued to dope.

If you can point to where the culture to dope to win changed and prove it changed, then i might allow there to be a clean rider, but it has not changed.

As many have said if Froome had talent**, it would have shown itself long ago. The people running Konica and Barloworld were not neophytes and idiots. Froome came from nowhere in 3 weeks and they ahve been trying to rewrite his history prior to those 3 weeks ever since.

*reason, as in reasoned decision as in proof of doping.

**Talent, yes Froome had enough talent to get a pro contract, but lots did. He never in his early years as a pro showed his GT potential as big teams would've swooped, not new teams looking for cheap salaried riders.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

yaco said:
rick james said:
No one wins clean.......apparently

I doubt doping has ever been properly defined in this forum - For me doping is using prohibited substances - But most athletes will use substances in which the performance enhancing qualities are unknown at the time by WADA - Or they will use a cocktail of substances which enhance performance - Or you use new substances straight off the shelf - As this group is not YET on the banned list its not DOPING - So i expect some throw around the world doping to include banned and non-banned substances.


It has been discussed many times on here.

From an athletes perspective, I would guess that «never tested positive» is a valid definition.
If they operate outbound detection, wether it being micro-dosing and/or using methods still undetectable/unbanned then they are cleans.

However, if we accept this premise, we also accept that everything goes, unless it is discovered.

Is that a fair measure?

Depends.

But in this case we are dealing with a team, that was built on the premise of superior ethics.

Now I understand why they crossed the line. But they themselves are to blame for the flak now.
 
Re: Re:

mrhender said:
yaco said:
rick james said:
No one wins clean.......apparently

I doubt doping has ever been properly defined in this forum - For me doping is using prohibited substances - But most athletes will use substances in which the performance enhancing qualities are unknown at the time by WADA - Or they will use a cocktail of substances which enhance performance - Or you use new substances straight off the shelf - As this group is not YET on the banned list its not DOPING - So i expect some throw around the world doping to include banned and non-banned substances.


It has been discussed many times on here.

From an athletes perspective, I would guess that «never tested positive» is a valid definition.
If they operate outbound detection, wether it being micro-dosing and/or using methods still undetectable/unbanned then they are cleans.

However, if we accept this premise, we also accept that everything goes, unless it is discovered.

Is that a fair measure?

Depends.

But in this case we are dealing with a team, that was built on the premise of superior ethics.

Now I understand why they crossed the line. But they themselves are to blame for the flak now.

I am happy enough with your definition - Athletes are funny beasts in that many will experiment with all types of concotions, go on weird and wonderful diets, listen to old wives tales etc, in order to improve - I agree for some its 'anything goes', though it's not always a one fits all result.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
rick james said:
It’s funny now that the argument seems to be that froome dawg didn’t show any talent when he was younger

This has been a primary topic of argument since he rose from the ashes of potential unemployment to grand tour podiums.

2011 Tour of California, Sagan dropping Froome on a climb :lol:

11qigwh.jpg
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Angliru said:
rick james said:
It’s funny now that the argument seems to be that froome dawg didn’t show any talent when he was younger

This has been a primary topic of argument since he rose from the ashes of potential unemployment to grand tour podiums.

2011 Tour of California, Sagan dropping Froome on a climb :lol:

11qigwh.jpg

Froome showing huge talent, massive, big potential................
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
silvergrenade said:
Benotti69 said:
[quote="
Gald you mention history. TdF historically not won clean. Froome part of that cohort of dopers.

You cannot deny history :D

I'm glad you mention it again.
Multiple TdFs historically have been won by athletes with exceptional talent.
Froome part of that cohort of talent. :)
You want me to list them out? :lol:

If you want to compare Froome to the Merckx's, Coppi, Anquetils's etc, who all doped, but who all showed talent early.

Froome only commonality with other TdF winners is as a doper. Talent? Nope.
I didnt start the comparison. You cant have the cake and eat it too.
Talent is another commonality. You can choose to ignore. Not my problem.

Multiple winners of the Tour de France general classification
Cyclist Total Years
Jacques Anquetil (FRA) 5 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964
Eddy Merckx (BEL) 5 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974
Bernard Hinault (FRA) 5 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1985
Miguel Indurain (ESP) 5 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995
Chris Froome (GBR) 4 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017
Philippe Thys (BEL) 3 1913, 1914, 1920
Louison Bobet (FRA) 3 1953, 1954, 1955
Greg LeMond (USA) 3 1986, 1989, 1990
Lucien Petit-Breton (FRA) 2 1907, 1908
Firmin Lambot (BEL) 2 1919, 1922
Ottavio Bottecchia (ITA) 2 1924, 1925
Nicolas Frantz (LUX) 2 1927, 1928
André Leducq (FRA) 2 1930, 1932
Antonin Magne (FRA) 2 1931, 1934
Sylvère Maes (BEL) 2 1936, 1939
Gino Bartali (ITA) 2 1938, 1948
Fausto Coppi (ITA) 2 1949, 1952
Bernard Thévenet (FRA) 2 1975, 1977
Laurent Fignon (FRA) 2 1983, 1984
Alberto Contador (ESP)[D] 2 2007, 2009

All the names mentioned have won because they were special. They had what it takes.
Every one on the list has/had talent. Proving that all of them doped would be a much tougher task. :razz:
Not really. I proved a page back that all multiple post war winners have been busted, confessed or under undeniable suspicion except Lemond - who can still be debated :confused:
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Alpe73 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M
Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

As usual, as like the rest ... you got nothing, bro ... really. You have lots of suspicion, grant you that ... so you wait, at the office, and recycle thousands of bits of rehashed tabloid ... hyper vigilant ... waiting for a break in the case. Chris must be having a right old laugh with your posts. Will give you this ...gives you an honest day's work, B. :lol:
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Benotti69 said:
Alpe73 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M
Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

As usual, as like the rest ... you got nothing, bro ... really. You have lots of suspicion, grant you that ... so you wait, at the office, and recycle thousands of bits of rehashed tabloid ... hyper vigilant ... waiting for a break in the case. Chris must be having a right old laugh with your posts. Will give you this ...gives you an honest day's work, B. :lol:

you'll probably find it the 'believers' he's laughing at......
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Benotti69 said:
Alpe73 said:
ScienceIsCool said:
brownbobby said:
Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.
M
Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

You don’t know his potential; you only know his results, past and present. What you claim to be his ‘potential’ ... are your inferences of probability based on limited data ... previous results. A ‘decent’ scientific model, I suppose ... but in the lab ... whatchya reckon the margin of error to be? Small enough to confidently declare an athlete a dirty cheat? Outside of any real, empirical, measured, corroborated, adjudicated evidence. C’ mon, man ... you got nothin ... ‘cept suspicion. What’s the half life of that shyte?

Jeroen Swart tried to prove his potential and failed miserably. All we got was he lost the inner fat.

As usual, as like the rest ... you got nothing, bro ... really. You have lots of suspicion, grant you that ... so you wait, at the office, and recycle thousands of bits of rehashed tabloid ... hyper vigilant ... waiting for a break in the case. Chris must be having a right old laugh with your posts. Will give you this ...gives you an honest day's work, B. :lol:

Déjà vu.
 

TRENDING THREADS