Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Taxus4a]

Not many people dispute a verdict that Evans dopes. Trust me, I've tried!

Why do you think he dope? doped in the past I mean.

The talented riders as him os Sastre dont need doping to be up there in a GT.
Of course in the dark era, they didnt win anything important, it was after OP at least.

Evans was one more in Telekom, behind the leaders, Sastre was a domestique of Basso when for talent had to be the contrary (although they have similar).

Kroon write in his book, Sastre didnt dope for the depression of Chava Jimenez's dead.

Evans has been always clean, and that is the motive that I think that in a cleaner era he is getting his best results, and still today he can win the Tour (if he has not heath problems as last year, or 2010 Giro, etc...)

Santambroglio cant beat Nibali even dope, Jose Belda cant beat Quintana in Madrid even superdope.

Valverde as well has a big talent, but he doped, I would say the same for Contador, he is talented, if he is not better this year must be more than no doping, but I cant believe him in 2009 at least.

For some people EPO or transfusions are not a big adventage, for others a lot.

If you want to asseverate almost everybody dope, and the people winning in 2008 is impossible without doping, you can do it, but it is just your word, nothing behind that proof that, the evidence is more in the contrary.

I could not asseverate that, I would like to have more evidence, but as the same way asseverate they doped for sure...

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Why do you think he dope? doped in the past I mean.

The talented riders as him os Sastre dont need doping to be up there in a GT.
Of course in the dark era, they didnt win anything important

Evans was one more in Telekom, behind the leaders, Sastre was a domestique of Basso when for talent had to be the contrary (although they have similar).

Kroon write in his book, Sastre didnt dope for the depression of Chava Jimenez's dead.

Evans has been always clean, and that is the motive that I think that in a cleaner era he is getting his best results, and still today he can win the Tour (if he has not heath problems as last year, or 2010 Giro, etc...)

Santambroglio cant beat Nibali even dope, Jose Belda cant beat Quintana in Madrid even superdope.

Valverde as well has a big talent, but he doped, I would say the same for Contador, he is talented, if he is not better this year must be more than no doping, but I cant believe him in 2009 at least.

For some people EPO or transfusions are not a big adventage, for others a lot.

If you want to asseverate almost everybody dope, and the people winning in 2008 is impossible without doping, you can do it, but it is just your word, nothing behind that proof that, the evidence is more in the contrary.

I could not asseverate that, I would like to have more evidence, but as the same way asseverate they doped for sure...

SANTAMBROGIO or is it deliberate on your part?

 

[horsinabout]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

From the Wiki

"In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings".

The average clinic 12 member? Quite possible....

"Depending on the region from which accounts of trolls stem, their appearance varies greatly; trolls may be ugly and slow-witted or look and behave exactly like human beings, with no particularly grotesque characteristic about them."

The average Foome fan ? I'll say so.....

 

[Dazed and Confused]

SANTAMBROGIO or is it deliberate on your part?

From Columbia, no doubt.

Interestingly, puffy cheeks may even be the cleanest rider of the lot above.

 

[gillan1969]

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.

eh....an observation if I may....Pre-road, Evans was a world class mtber..world cups, world champs, olympics...you name it he did it..

Pre road Froome was...eh...a crap mtber...way, way, way down at 2006 Commie Games...to name but one hardly illustrious international event he showed such early promise in...

that's what's up

 

[Heckler]

SANTAMBROGIO or is it deliberate on your part?

Saint of the Fraud?

 

[McLovin]

eh....an observation if I may....Pre-road, Evans was a world class mtber..world cups, world champs, olympics...you name it he did it..

Pre road Froome was...eh...a crap mtber...way, way, way down at 2006 Commie Games...to name but one hardly illustrious international event he showed such early promise in...

that's what's up

Nice proof. He was bad in his youth. Then Ullrich was clean as a tear by your judgment.

 

[gillan1969]

nope...one does not follow the other...

the single biggest indicator of doping (in the absence of reliable testing) is sudden jumps in performance

Froome's 2011 Vuelta was such a jump.....

based on the past 20 years of cycling it is for the cyclist to prove himself clean and not for the fan to prove he is dirty....at the moment it is a given....

as you bring Ullrich in as regardless of provenance the general consensus (and that includes his peers) is that he was a class athlete

the same cannot be said of Froome, who is...a bit of a spindly joke

Porte and Wiggins are Jason and Kylie, Froome on the other hand is Big Fun. The equivalent of SAWs musical joke, is Brailsfords sporting joke.
The above requires a knowledge of the descent of popular british music's descent into the depths it eventually trawled...

 

[del1962]

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.

We have a fellow who we know has doped in the past by his own admission, who has worked closely with Chris, who says Chris is clean. When you have a previous doper (particularly one who admitted it without prompting) who has worked closely with a rider and say they are clean, then I think we can have some confidence that Chris is likely clean.

 

[hrotha]

We have a fellow who we know has doped in the past by his own admission, who has worked closely with Chris, who says Chris is clean. When you have a previous doper (particularly one who admitted it without prompting) who has worked closely with a rider and say they are clean, then I think we can have some confidence that Chris is likely clean.

Are you talking about Julich?

 

[Ferminal]

Why do you think he dope? doped in the past I mean.

The talented riders as him os Sastre dont need doping to be up there in a GT.
Of course in the dark era, they didnt win anything important, it was after OP at least.

Evans was one more in Telekom, behind the leaders, Sastre was a domestique of Basso when for talent had to be the contrary (although they have similar).

Kroon write in his book, Sastre didnt dope for the depression of Chava Jimenez's dead.

Evans has been always clean, and that is the motive that I think that in a cleaner era he is getting his best results, and still today he can win the Tour (if he has not heath problems as last year, or 2010 Giro, etc...)

Santambroglio cant beat Nibali even dope, Jose Belda cant beat Quintana in Madrid even superdope.

Valverde as well has a big talent, but he doped, I would say the same for Contador, he is talented, if he is not better this year must be more than no doping, but I cant believe him in 2009 at least.

For some people EPO or transfusions are not a big adventage, for others a lot.

If you want to asseverate almost everybody dope, and the people winning in 2008 is impossible without doping, you can do it, but it is just your word, nothing behind that proof that, the evidence is more in the contrary.

I could not asseverate that, I would like to have more evidence, but as the same way asseverate they doped for sure...

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18929&page=1

 

[Benotti69]

eh....an observation if I may....Pre-road, Evans was a world class mtber..world cups, world champs, olympics...you name it he did it..

Pre road Froome was...eh...a crap mtber...way, way, way down at 2006 Commie Games...to name but one hardly illustrious international event he showed such early promise in...

that's what's up

MTBers dont dope? I doubt that.

Evans has a very chequered history in relation to teams, docs, results.

 

[Gregga]

Pre road Froome was...eh...a crap mtber...way, way, way down at 2006 Commie Games...to name but one hardly illustrious international event he showed such early promise in...

that's what's up

Don't be unfair, he was crap just because he didn't warm down and wash his hands enough. And also Osym' rings were not available for MTB at that time.

 

[King Boonen]

Don't be unfair, he was crap just because he didn't warm down and wash his hands enough. And also Osym' rings were not available for MTB at that time.

You'd have to be mental to ride Osym' rings on a mountain bike.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Don't be unfair, he was crap just because he didn't warm down and wash his hands enough. And also Osym' rings were not available for MTB at that time.

Award for most original post goes to....

 

[thehog]

We have a fellow who we know has doped in the past by his own admission, who has worked closely with Chris, who says Chris is clean. When you have a previous doper (particularly one who admitted it without prompting) who has worked closely with a rider and say they are clean, then I think we can have some confidence that Chris is likely clean.

We have a fellow who you can’t name who may or may not be Bobby Jullich who was cornered by Sky’s newly found ZTP and asked to sign a contract that no one has seen, which lead to him confessing (a little bit) and this fellow who may or may not be Bobby Jullich says Froome is clean despite his zig zagging up hills has become the world’s greatest cyclist.

I love Skybot logic.

I’m with you. Based on that the Dawg is clean as a whistle.

 

[Netserk]

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.

Not true.

 

[Von Mises]

You are making me dizzy. Too much information and arguments mixed together with an unclear formatting. Have you by any chance watched yes minister? The top bureaucrat has lines which resemble what you wrote. I have to admit it is late and my mind has left me somewhat.

My argument is simple. Which scenario requires less mental energy?

A. Explaining how Froome has became as good as he has without doping.
B. Explaining how Froome has become as good as he has with doping.

For me B. is much easier. But is the fact that it is easier indicative of B being more correct than A?


To decouple this from thoughts of Froome, do the same exercise for the winner of the Tour de Suisse, Rui Costa.

a. Explaining how Costa has became as good as he has without doping.
b. Explaining how Costa has become as good as he has with doping.

For me again b is the easy option. But again, is the fact that it's easier to construct a scenario of Costas results being due to doping indicative that he is doping?

In both cases I would say no.

Actually "easiness" or how much mental energy we have to spend is one of the main factors how biases are created. Classic example is how people answer to question: is adultery more common among politicians than among physicians? Politician comes easily to our mind, because media is full of examples about sexscandals involving politicians. Psychologist call this mechanism availability heuristics. Ease to answer gives mental pleasure, it also makes as feel that answer is correct. Only later we try to build some kind of rationalization around our decision, adultery is more common among politicians because they have power and power attracts etc etc. Mechanism is still same: easy answer first, rationalization later.
(Of course, I am not saying that easy answer is wrong or vice versa, just pointing that it is source of many judgement errors).

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Porte and Wiggins are Jason and Kylie, Froome on the other hand is Big Fun. The equivalent of SAWs musical joke, is Brailsfords sporting joke.

The above requires a knowledge of the descent of popular british music's descent into the depths it eventually trawled...

Froome must surely be Rick Astley!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Why do you think he dope? doped in the past I mean.

The talented riders as him os Sastre dont need doping to be up there in a GT.
Of course in the dark era, they didnt win anything important, it was after OP at least.

Evans was one more in Telekom, behind the leaders, Sastre was a domestique of Basso when for talent had to be the contrary (although they have similar).

Kroon write in his book, Sastre didnt dope for the depression of Chava Jimenez's dead.

Evans has been always clean, and that is the motive that I think that in a cleaner era he is getting his best results, and still today he can win the Tour (if he has not heath problems as last year, or 2010 Giro, etc...)

Santambroglio cant beat Nibali even dope, Jose Belda cant beat Quintana in Madrid even superdope.

Valverde as well has a big talent, but he doped, I would say the same for Contador, he is talented, if he is not better this year must be more than no doping, but I cant believe him in 2009 at least.

For some people EPO or transfusions are not a big adventage, for others a lot.

If you want to asseverate almost everybody dope, and the people winning in 2008 is impossible without doping, you can do it, but it is just your word, nothing behind that proof that, the evidence is more in the contrary.

I could not asseverate that, I would like to have more evidence, but as the same way asseverate they doped for sure...

I want to asseverate Froome Boss need big up himself. Wagwaan Check Dis 1.

 

[del1962]

I want to asseverate Froome Boss need big up himself. Wagwaan Check Dis 1.

"to affirm or declare positively or earnestly"

This is want Walsh has done with team sky being clean, he has interviewed Julich (a self confessed doper) who has affirmed that he saw nothing of doping at sky.

Generally when a self confessed ex doper who has experience with rider (s) who affirms this we think it is a good indication that the rider (s) are not doping

 

[thehog]

Froome must surely be Rick Astley!

Froome is Milli Vanilli or Betty Boo.


Once it's discovered he's only lip syncing he'll lose his Grammy awards.

 

[FrankChickens]

We have a fellow who you can’t name who may or may not be Bobby Jullich who was cornered by Sky’s newly found ZTP and asked to sign a contract that no one has seen, which lead to him confessing (a little bit) and this fellow who may or may not be Bobby Jullich says Froome is clean despite his zig zagging up hills has become the world’s greatest cyclist.

I love Skybot logic.

I’m with you. Based on that the Dawg is clean as a whistle.

According to this logic all of Riis' riders are clean, but only if he promises us that they are.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Froome is Milli Vanilli or Betty Boo.

Nice one! But wasn't "Rick Astley" either Luther Vandross or a Kylie "45" played at "33"?

 

[FrankChickens]

"to affirm or declare positively or earnestly"

This is want Walsh has done with team sky being clean, he has interviewed Julich (a self confessed doper) who has affirmed that he saw nothing of doping at sky.

Generally when a self confessed ex doper who has experience with rider (s) who affirms this we think it is a good indication that the rider (s) are not doping