Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[jflemaire]

Froome will be treated very "badly" if he shows up. Good news for Geraint: he'll get his shot.

At crashing out of the race... When was the last time Thomas finished a grand tour?

 

[Red Rick]

Too many small gains multiply the possibility to get busted.

For the TdF topic, the French see this as a national treasure, they were served another Armstrong dish and knew it. Now that the smoking gun is out, rotten tomatoes will fly. There was that say in the '30s (IIRC) that July is when the government can take a vacation: Le Tour is everything.

Froome will be treated very "badly" if he shows up. Good news for Geraint: he'll get his shot.

Since the news came out, it's a free for all "I'm doing the Tour". People in the know...know.

Yeah, for Contador I think it was mostly just the team presentation? But I think he still had a lot of credit for destroying Armstrong, and I think that by 2011 chaingate didn't matter too much. He did test positive in the Tour though.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

 

[Breh]

I dunno about examples for the ASO but RCS invited CCC to the giro on the condition that davide rebellin would not ride it. So organizers can and do exclude riders

ASO did this with Valverde in 2009, when he was barred from Italy, he wanted to ride the Tour as a stage hunter for two weeks then withdraw on stage 16 which passed through Italy, ASO weren't happy with that arrangement and told Caisse d'Epargne they would be excluded if they selected Valverde. Although a Spanish team, the sponsor at the time was French and they acquiesced, instead entering the race without any credible GC threat, and keeping everybody of value back for the Vuelta, which, of course, Valverde won.

Didn't they do the same with Boonen? He was not allowed to participate in 2008 after he had tested positive on cocaine off season if I recall correctly.

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

...The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

Exactomundo. Perception is all. Dawgs reputation is now zilch.

 

[Salvarani]

Everything about this screams guilty. From the cover-up to what he says to the hiring of the lawyer. The arrogance from Sky and Froome thinking this would go away without no consequences. Cheater. He is done out here.

Good riddance.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

You're taking this specific comment a little bit out of context. I've already said that the landscape has changed. I know you're still surfing the wave of euphoria from this week's events, but that was yesterday's discussion for me. I'm sorry for moving on so quickly from the whole whooping and cheering that still goes on for some at his perceived downfall, or the desperate defence by a few. No emotional investment you see

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting sub topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

 

[Rollthedice]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

You're taking this specific comment a little bit out of context. I've already said that the landscape has changed. I know you're still surfing the wave of euphoria from this week's events, but that was yesterday's discussion for me.

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

If he will be allowed to ride Le Tour and persevere in denial and arrogance while destroying everybody on the road that Heineken piss thrown at him will look like a friendly gesture compared to what he'll have to face in France. If he'll accept his wrongdoing (which will not happen) and get back to his Barloworld donkey days (might happen) then he has a chance.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I don't think Froome is bipolar
but the combo Froome+Cound shows the symptom.
Witch hunt?
Which witch?

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

. No emotional investment you see

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting sub topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

Yup, no emotional investment for you, hey brownbobby. And of course, none of those tourist cycling fans and French people lining the TDF route would dream of their hero Dawg lieing to and cheating them of their emotional and monetary investment for 6 years. Nope, they will all cheer Dawg and Sky on to an wheezing win.

After all, nothing to see here, move along (Allez Allez)

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

You're taking this specific comment a little bit out of context. I've already said that the landscape has changed. I know you're still surfing the wave of euphoria from this week's events, but that was yesterday's discussion for me. I'm sorry for moving on so quickly from the whole whooping and cheering that still goes on for some at his perceived downfall, or the desperate defence by a few. No emotional investment you see

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting sub topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

I suggest you start your own topic on this subject as in "How do crowds react to a returning doper?" or "My summer vacation 2018 should I stay or should I go?"

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

You're taking this specific comment a little bit out of context. I've already said that the landscape has changed. I know you're still surfing the wave of euphoria from this week's events, but that was yesterday's discussion for me.

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

If he will be allowed to ride Le Tour and persevere in denial and arrogance while destroying everybody on the road that Heineken piss thrown at him will look like a friendly gesture compared to what he'll have to face in France. If he'll accept his wrongdoing (which will not happen) and get back to his Barloworld donkey days (might happen) then he has a chance.

Ahhh. interesting, particularly so when read in sight of your profile pic. I remember Alpe d'Huez in 2015. Not just Froome, but anything/anyone Sky related getting a torrid time from a very boisterous set of Italian fans all day long.

Just because he's in France, it's not necessarily 'the French he has to worry about.

Which makes you wonder about the Giro..

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

You're taking this specific comment a little bit out of context. I've already said that the landscape has changed. I know you're still surfing the wave of euphoria from this week's events, but that was yesterday's discussion for me. I'm sorry for moving on so quickly from the whole whooping and cheering that still goes on for some at his perceived downfall, or the desperate defence by a few. No emotional investment you see

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting sub topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

I suggest you start your own topic on this subject as in "How do crowds react to a returning doper?" or "My summer vacation 2018 should I stay or should I go?"

Oh I'm going. No worries there.

That Chris Froome. Dirty cheating scumbag. Knew it all along. He used to be rubbish didn't he. Then he got good. Not normal. Knew it all along.

Can I stay in your forum now? Please. Pretty please,

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

I've seen a lot of codswallop ... and rubbish dressed up as codswallop ... on this thread ... but this takes the cake.

IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ... he deserves a punishment commensurate to the infraction. No more, no less ... that's the rules. Reputation, legacy, reputation of the sport, hand wringing, wailing and g-nashing of teeth, biting of chainrings ... meh. The world will turn, the sun will set ... and there'll be lots of pro cycling going on. Bet on it!

Your feable attempts at Pathos (your party congress rant the other day on the Froome thread proletariat versus the capitalist/happyist roaders) and Verecundiam (10/100, 80% outa thin air) elicit the polar opposite response that you solicit. Why? Because rational people, rational posters feel your pathological zeal to BURY an athlete who has yet to be adjudicated by authorities who have jurisdiction.

Froome, like Armstrong, will continue to have MILLIONS of fans. ("Stages" saw over 5 MILLION downloads!) I can see how this would drive you bat *** crazy ... but it's bigger than you, outa your hands brutha.

There are posters on this thread who relish the destruction DESTRUCTION not only of certain Pro athletes, but of the sport itself (Cycling, Athletics).

When you stay between the rails, you create dialogue of merit. But your Radiogaga ... no one's buying it ...'scept "The Clinic 2 or 3".

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

Oh I'm going. No worries there

That Chris Froome. Dirty cheating scumbag. Knew it all along. He used to be rubbish didn't he. Then he got good. Not normal. Knew it all along.

Can I stay in your forum now? Please. Pretty please,

Nope. Ta tah

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

. No emotional investment you see

This particular conversation was specific to if he'll be allowed in this year's tour (legal circumstance permitting) and if so what kind of reception he'll get. Not from the die hard cycling fans to whom this doping debate means a great deal, but the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of casual spectators who line the roads in France every July.

Yes, I get your point about people now 'knowing' but how does that translate to emotions on the side of the road. A few comments on here seemed to suggest that a baying lynch mob awaited him in France should he dare to ride the tour.

I don't believe this is the case, but it is an interesting sub topic for me with my annual trip to the Alps looming in July

Yup, no emotional investment for you, hey brownbobby. And of course, none of those tourist cycling fans and French people lining the TDF route would dream of their hero Dawg lieing to and cheating them of their emotional and monetary investment for 6 years. Nope, they will all cheer Dawg and Sky on to an wheezing win.

After all, nothing to see here, move along (Allez Allez)

Eh?? Never happened before. Oh wait, I see what you're doing now, projecting what you think I want to hear is going to happen to let me know that you know that I'm really just another Sky apologist trying to cover my tracks.

Well played Sir. No fooling you.

 

[gryphon]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

I've seen a lot of codswallop ... and rubbish dressed up as codswallop ... on this thread ... but this takes the cake.

IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ... he deserves a punishment commensurate to the infraction. No more, no less ... that's the rules. Reputation, legacy, reputation of the sport, hand wringing, wailing and g-nashing of teeth, biting of chainrings ... meh. The world will turn, the sun will set ... and there'll be lots of pro cycling going on. Bet on it!

Your feable attempts at Pathos (your party congress rant the other day on the Froome thread proletariat versus the capitalist/happyist roaders) and Verecundiam (10/100, 80% outa thin air) elicit the polar opposite response that you solicit. Why? Because rational people, rational posters feel your pathological zeal to BURY an athlete who has yet to be adjudicated by authorities who have jurisdiction.

Froome, like Armstrong, will continue to have MILLIONS of fans. ("Stages" saw over 5 MILLION downloads!) I can see how this would drive you bat **** crazy ... but it's bigger than you, outa your hands brutha.

There are posters on this thread who relish the destruction DESTRUCTION not only of certain Pro athletes, but of the sport itself (Cycling, Athletics).

When you stay between the rails, you create dialogue of merit. But your your Radiogaga ... no one's buying it ...'scept "The Clinic 2 or 3".

"IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ..."

Let's be very clear here, Froome has already been found to have broken a rule. Done. Now, however, he is provided an opportunity to satisfactorily explain how and why he broke a rule.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

I've seen a lot of codswallop ... and rubbish dressed up as codswallop ... on this thread ... but this takes the cake.

IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ... he deserves a punishment commensurate to the infraction. No more, no less ... that's the rules. Reputation, legacy, reputation of the sport, hand wringing, wailing and g-nashing of teeth, biting of chainrings ... meh. The world will turn, the sun will set ... and there'll be lots of pro cycling going on. Bet on it!

Your feable attempts at Pathos (your party congress rant the other day on the Froome thread proletariat versus the capitalist/happyist roaders) and Verecundiam (10/100, 80% outa thin air) elicit the polar opposite response that you solicit. Why? Because rational people, rational posters feel your pathological zeal to BURY an athlete who has yet to be adjudicated by authorities who have jurisdiction.

Froome, like Armstrong, will continue to have MILLIONS of fans. ("Stages" saw over 5 MILLION downloads!) I can see how this would drive you bat **** crazy ... but it's bigger than you, outa your hands brutha.

There are posters on this thread who relish the destruction DESTRUCTION not only of certain Pro athletes, but of the sport itself (Cycling, Athletics).

When you stay between the rails, you create dialogue of merit. But your your Radiogaga ... no one's buying it ...'scept "The Clinic 2 or 3".

I see desperation and frustration all over this post. You are trying, really trying to convince yourself, maybe Even us, that Froome still annoys us. You need this, to know that people still get annoyed by Froome, it would give you peace.

And how you clutch at straws. Yes its the youtube vids. The fact that Froome you claim appears in stages with 5 million youtube hits, you say, surely THAT must annoy and hurt us. Yes. Maybe we struggle to sleep at night because Froome is in vids with 5 million youtube hits.

Really what you long for is to turn back the time. Just 1 week. Oh how great life would be if you could turn back the time 1 week to a world where Froome still hadnt failed the test. Then you could still taunt us with the fact that we would never get him (or so you hoped) and the world would be a more beautiful place for you since you could mock people on the internet that a cheat you liked had escaped and as you say yourself, enjoy the fact that there is nothing we can do about it.

But those days are gone. They got him. But you can keep clutching at those straws. And its you who are powerless now. Powerless to mock us and powerless to turn back the time.

 

[LaFlorecita]

What the hell is "stages"??

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

What the hell is "stages"??

Lance Armstrongs podcast!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

What the hell is "stages"??

Lance Armstrongs podcast!

I thought it was something to do with froome

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

I've seen a lot of codswallop ... and rubbish dressed up as codswallop ... on this thread ... but this takes the cake.

IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ... he deserves a punishment commensurate to the infraction. No more, no less ... that's the rules. Reputation, legacy, reputation of the sport, hand wringing, wailing and g-nashing of teeth, biting of chainrings ... meh. The world will turn, the sun will set ... and there'll be lots of pro cycling going on. Bet on it!

Your feable attempts at Pathos (your party congress rant the other day on the Froome thread proletariat versus the capitalist/happyist roaders) and Verecundiam (10/100, 80% outa thin air) elicit the polar opposite response that you solicit. Why? Because rational people, rational posters feel your pathological zeal to BURY an athlete who has yet to be adjudicated by authorities who have jurisdiction.

Froome, like Armstrong, will continue to have MILLIONS of fans. ("Stages" saw over 5 MILLION downloads!) I can see how this would drive you bat **** crazy ... but it's bigger than you, outa your hands brutha.

There are posters on this thread who relish the destruction DESTRUCTION not only of certain Pro athletes, but of the sport itself (Cycling, Athletics).

When you stay between the rails, you create dialogue of merit. But your your Radiogaga ... no one's buying it ...'scept "The Clinic 2 or 3".

I see desperation and frustration all over this post. You are trying, really trying to convince yourself, maybe Even us, that Froome still annoys us. You need this, to know that people still get annoyed by Froome, it would give you peace.

And how you clutch at straws. Yes its the youtube vids. The fact that Froome you claim appears in stages with 5 million youtube hits, you say, surely THAT must annoy and hurt us. Yes. Maybe we struggle to sleep at night because Froome is in vids with 5 million youtube hits.

Really what you long for is to turn back the time. Just 1 week. Oh how great life would be if you could turn back the time 1 week to a world where Froome still hadnt failed the test. Then you could still taunt us with the fact that we would never get him (or so you hoped) and the world would be a more beautiful place for you since you could mock people on the internet that a cheat you liked had escaped and as you say yourself, enjoy the fact that there is nothing we can do about it.

But those days are gone. They got him. But you can keep clutching at those straws. And its you who are powerless now. Powerless to mock us and powerless to turn back the time.

Ain't mockery, mate. Pity.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

The difference is that this year he has been caught doping.

At this point I'm trying think of the best ways to protect his legacy, reputation, and wealth. He'll go from villain to sympathetic hero if he accepts some kind of ban that also includes the loss of a Grand Tour or two. It certainly did wonders for Contador.

.

I don't think the positive test makes one bit of difference in this regard. Those who disliked him before will continue to do so, they thought they knew he was doping already. Those who support him will continue to do so along the lines of 'it's only asthma meds, a mistake, not real doping'

Funny. I remember exactly this same defense mechanism argument from Armstrong loyalists in the week of August 23rd 2012 - this doesn't change anything, those who thought he was clean will still think so and those who thought he was dirty will still think so.

The paralels just never end.

You are right In a way. The 10 people responsible for the 100 or so active accounts on the internet that still defend Froome, will continue to do so. The 80% or so of cycling fans who didn't trust this guy, still don't trust him, though of course the ones who still gave him a tiny benefit of the doubt, now for a fact he is a doping cheat.
The casual fans or none fans who never thought about it now know he is a cheat. The on the take journos and insiders who hid behind "never tested positive" now have to find a new rock. Some will go full ligget and make up any ridiculous excuse but some will also stop bothering (as we see from mcquaid)

Everything has changed

I've seen a lot of codswallop ... and rubbish dressed up as codswallop ... on this thread ... but this takes the cake.

IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ... he deserves a punishment commensurate to the infraction. No more, no less ... that's the rules. Reputation, legacy, reputation of the sport, hand wringing, wailing and g-nashing of teeth, biting of chainrings ... meh. The world will turn, the sun will set ... and there'll be lots of pro cycling going on. Bet on it!

Your feable attempts at Pathos (your party congress rant the other day on the Froome thread proletariat versus the capitalist/happyist roaders) and Verecundiam (10/100, 80% outa thin air) elicit the polar opposite response that you solicit. Why? Because rational people, rational posters feel your pathological zeal to BURY an athlete who has yet to be adjudicated by authorities who have jurisdiction.

Froome, like Armstrong, will continue to have MILLIONS of fans. ("Stages" saw over 5 MILLION downloads!) I can see how this would drive you bat **** crazy ... but it's bigger than you, outa your hands brutha.

There are posters on this thread who relish the destruction DESTRUCTION not only of certain Pro athletes, but of the sport itself (Cycling, Athletics).

When you stay between the rails, you create dialogue of merit. But your your Radiogaga ... no one's buying it ...'scept "The Clinic 2 or 3".

"IF Chris Froome is found, by UCI/WADA, to have broken the rules ..."

Let's be very clear here, Froome has already been found to have broken a rule. Done. Now, however, he is provided an opportunity to satisfactorily explain how and why he broke a rule.

Incorrect. He's returned an adverse analytical finding. Now he's been given the opportunity to try and demonstrate that said AAF wasn't the result of breaking the rules.

 

[Bolder]

Man, can you guys learn how to snip quotes? Or take this offline to a pub or something? Mods, where are you?

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Hubris

This is the problem for Dawg.

It's not about the puff on an inhaler (or 40)

It's the end result of all the "marginal gains", the pseudo science, the power metre, the jingoism, the protection, the fawning adulation, triumphalism, lies and deceipt, Leinders, Dodger, Wiggos joint, Counds tweets, the jiffy bag, Planche, Aix3, tail winds on Ventoux, 480Watts, Dave's manifesto, the knighthoods, the Veulta napkin, the anatomic jock strap, the shoes on the wrong way, bilharzia, and the 2011 Veulta "transformation"

I tend to go with the contaminated blood bag, taken OOC with a shitload of Sal on board for fat loss. Transfused after the stage 17 collapse, along with plenty of oral or injected Sal in the usual brekky cocktail. Combined they made him glow 6 hours later.

Exactly what Jaske tweeted - they forgot about the Sal in the bag.

Marginal can be a double edged sword

Outstanding stuff from start to finish. Thank you.