Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Ok, you forced me to double post. My head might explode otherwise...

From the SKY thread:

Granville57 said:
Between this and the Froome thread there is an embarrassing amount of stupidity taking place. Seriously. I'd expect as much in the pro race sub-forum, but you people should know better.

To what do I refer? The painfully transparent and deliberate misspellings of Trollus4a. If you can't see it for what it is then perhaps the Internet in general is beyond your grasp.

I hate to spoil all the fun, but you are making fools of yourselves by falling for the false ignorance. Consider it a fantastic forum failure, if you will.

You're welcome.
 
Taxus4a said:
Give me the evidence of any rider is clean.

Choose the rider you want and tell us the evidence why he is clean.


I think del 1962 did a mistake with LSn (but maybe I miss something), but anyway he did a good reflection about what a lot of forum members do: consider trolling if you swim againts the tide and you think Froome and SKy could be clean (or think are clean)

But anyway: relax to everybody.

I have said how I see this, and I will try don't post a lot, even if that means don't answer some quote, something I dont like.
Ahhhh I smell a trollbot now.

Actually good disguise.

Well played.

It's bit late to be posting Spanish time is it not?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
pmcg76 said:
Yep and I have caught him lying and distorting things on a regular basis, he keeps it suttle so not to go above the level to arrouse suspicion but unless you look deeper into what he is lying about, it's difficult to trigger the alarm for many people.
you left a b from subtle you goose.

i dont lie dude. if i make a remark about garmin's use of burston marstellar, its a freekin cypher, its not meant to be read literally.

i dont make up things on the forum. i am one who does engage in the clinic shell game of chinese whisper, rumour, and innuendo. but i do not make up falsehoods. leave the ad hominem at the door dude.

and yes, for rigour and hypocrisy admission, i have not been free from guilt in using adhominem and attacking the messenger. my fault, my guilt, is mine.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
An observation if I may. I looked for Cadel's thread on clinic and I had to go 5 pages back. That thread is 1/4 of this one. Cadel finished 2 dozens of seconds (actually lost that because of bonus seconds) to the arguably the most doped Contador in 2007. Remember that cycling porn on Peyresourde, Beille and Aubisque? Well Cadel was a few seconds behind. Cadel worked with Ferrari, and that's a fact. Cadel won a Tour beating some proved and soon to be suspended riders. Cadel never ever had a team to help him even 100m on the final climb. Both, Cadel and Froome are known to be nice guys, so..? What's up?

And I hope you started to believe in miracles by now because all miracles are preceded by a 4'th in Vuelta. Just kidding.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Ferminal said:
Not many people dispute a verdict that Evans dopes. Trust me, I've tried!
Then why are we still watchin cycling? Are we masochists? Or we are all big fans of Pinotti?
 
McLovin said:
An observation if I may. I looked for Cadel's thread on clinic and I had to go 5 pages back. That thread is 1/4 of this one. Cadel finished 2 dozens of seconds (actually lost that because of bonus seconds) to the arguably the most doped Contador in 2007. Remember that cycling porn on Peyresourde, Beille and Aubisque? Well Cadel was a few seconds behind. Cadel worked with Ferrari, and that's a fact. Cadel won a Tour beating some proved and soon to be suspended riders. Cadel never ever had a team to help him even 100m on the final climb. Both, Cadel and Froome are known to be nice guys, so..? What's up?

And I hope you started to believe in miracles by now because all miracles are preceded by a 4'th in Vuelta. Just kidding.
Maybe it's just that the dawg is so...obvious. And the fact he looks like he is pushing a shopping cart while leaving everyone in his dust might have something to do with it.

And as Ferminal says, not many will argue that Evans is clean. Just more discreet.
 
Ugh, I don't know about you but I watch sport because it's good entertainment, not because I pretend professional athletes are not immune to wider issues in society and should be put on a pedestal where human flaws are not permitted.
 
Mar 16, 2013
98
0
0
frenchfry said:
Maybe it's just that the dawg is so...obvious. And the fact he looks like he is pushing a shopping cart while leaving everyone in his dust might have something to do with it.

And as Ferminal says, not many will argue that Evans is clean. Just more discreet.
Honestly, what the hell is up with that? Sky can't show the poor guy how to hold the bars? At least Wiggins looked the part.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Miburo said:
38 minutes on the alpe won't do the trick?
Not sure that considering performance levels way in excess of what Froome has achievedactually are very useful when trying to work out if he's been doping up to now.

A 38 minute ascent of the Alpe in the Tour would be a definite red flag, but it's best to wait until it's happened until we draw conclusions, I'd say.
 
wrong

thehog said:
Conversely no one should label the Dawg clean without giving good reason.
We deserve facts to know why he's clean.
I've not heard any. Just a lot of noise telling us that there's no proof of doping.
I want hear the reasons why Fromme is clean.
The silence is deafening.
this is where you're incorrect hoggie.............silence is assurance of cleanliness

shout as much as you wish 'doper...doper..........' and you may as well be p1ssin' in the wind

again only doping may be proven.........any data forwarded highlighting cleanliness may be labelled incomplete or disputed

thus far we have doubts resulting in much noise but the truth eludes us

Mark L
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Your use of the concept of "magic" conflated the idea of considering Froome being dirty as "received knowledge" in much the same way as science pre-Newton or pre-Galileo. It implicitly linked the idea of thinking Froome dirty with pre-enlightenment thought, based on faith in some vague intangible just as those pre-Newton and pre-Galileo believed "magic" to be behind gravity, and accepted on blind faith the church's proclamations that the sun revolved around the earth.

But doping is not some vague concept like "magic". You can't test positive for "magic". "Magic" can't be scientifically proven. Doping can. The naïve ones are those who refuse to entertain doping as a justification. The vultures of the Clinic are more like those who are overly cynical, not like those who attack those who challenge received knowledge as heretics.

The (non-trolling) people within the Clinic who believe Froome is clean may be swimming against the tide, but there's no need to martyr them.
The reason I used magic to explain this phenomena is that it is easier to exemplefy what I'm getting at. Perhaps I could have used the example of the homonculus problem in relation to the central executive. But that would be an example few would understand.
Here is a quick video, that might give an idea what that is:
http://gocognitive.net/interviews/central-executive-homunculus


My hole point is that it by default requires fewer assumptions and energy to argue that variability(in this case increase) in performance is due to doping. Doping then takes on a role as an easy way of explaining things we don't understand.

I'm not saying doping is magic, I'm saying that arguing someone is doping is the lazy way of explaining something we don't understand.

As for martyrdom.:D Looking at some of the reactions to arguments against doping being the explaining factor, I do get the impression that this might not be such a bad word to use.:p

As for trolling. I have to look up that word all the time, since for me Trolls are something totally different. And no matter how much I try to remember it's meaning in the context of the internet, my upbringing and culture overstears this new information. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Doping is magic. Because in cycling and sports in general we mostly have quacks and rarely real scientists (which is a good thing, if you ask me - maybe Sky is different, though). How long did they babble about and compare Hct values and many still do and how long did it Ashenden, Morkeberg, Sotta, Ekblom et al to discover microdosing and measure Hb mass? Moving from SC to IV was magical. In order to improve science you have to understand the magic.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Ferminal said:
Ugh, I don't know about you but I watch sport because it's good entertainment, not because I pretend professional athletes are not immune to wider issues in society and should be put on a pedestal where human flaws are not permitted.
Ferminal is also big wrestling fan ;)
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
hrotha said:
There's people here who watch wrestling while telling themselves it's real. Who's worse?
Cycling fans. Owen Hart died, so at least there some real things can happen?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
McLovin said:
An observation if I may. I looked for Cadel's thread on clinic and I had to go 5 pages back. That thread is 1/4 of this one. Cadel finished 2 dozens of seconds (actually lost that because of bonus seconds) to the arguably the most doped Contador in 2007. Remember that cycling porn on Peyresourde, Beille and Aubisque? Well Cadel was a few seconds behind. Cadel worked with Ferrari, and that's a fact. Cadel won a Tour beating some proved and soon to be suspended riders. Cadel never ever had a team to help him even 100m on the final climb. Both, Cadel and Froome are known to be nice guys, so..? What's up?
Cadel gives good face though. Falls off less.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY