Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1039 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
Between the rails of broader reality ... a post that will resonate as ‘fair’ with the majority of cycling fans. Good stuff.
 
Oude Geuze said:
Meh, it was only asthma meds, the public I think will be unimpressed. Froome will race on, possibly doing the “impossible” double next year and earn his rank amongst the legends. Steroids, transfusions or EPO though and he would be done. Don’t worry too much guys, CRISPER/CAS9 is here and the age of genetic doping is already upon us, it’s just a ride.

BTW Funny to see so many Contador fans in here acting outraged.
Prudent observations.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
Between the rails of broader reality ... a post that will resonate as ‘fair’ with the majority of cycling fans. Good stuff.
Depends on the cycling fans. In my little corner of the UK, we've all been doubters for years. Not all are quite as happy as I at this time, but I'd say none felt it was unexpected. Kind of depends who you hang with.

As for the 'we like winners' and don't much care about panache...if we have to go and speak for the nation as a whole, I'd rather say 'we' famously like underdogs. Froome's problem is that Sky aren't that. Indeed, I think the Grauniad article has it right - the winning behaviours, RVs, uber-dominance etc etc. is a big part of the problem.

All that said, I don't think most folks really give a toss. Froome isn't and has never been a very popular figure compared to almost any of his UK contemporaries - certain 'sports writers' have even written articles bemoaning he's underappreciated. And there's been so many stories about drugs in sports, most people I know are jaded and cynical about all sport. There's folks they want to believe in, so kind of suspend disbelief...and all the rest that they wouldn't be at all surprised to find injected EPO into their eyeballs every morning.
 
Re: Re:

Electress said:
Alpe73 said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
Between the rails of broader reality ... a post that will resonate as ‘fair’ with the majority of cycling fans. Good stuff.
Depends on the cycling fans. In my little corner of the UK, we've all been doubters for years. Not all are quite as happy as I at this time, but I'd say none felt it was unexpected. Kind of depends who you hang with.

As for the 'we like winners' and don't much care about panache...if we have to go and speak for the nation as a whole, I'd rather say 'we' famously like underdogs. Froome's problem is that Sky aren't that. Indeed, I think the Grauniad article has it right - the winning behaviours, RVs, uber-dominance etc etc. is a big part of the problem.

All that said, I don't think most folks really give a toss. Froome isn't and has never been a very popular figure compared to almost any of his UK contemporaries - certain 'sports writers' have even written articles bemoaning he's underappreciated. And there's been so many stories about drugs in sports, most people I know are jaded and cynical about all sport. There's folks they want to believe in, so kind of suspend disbelief...and all the rest that they wouldn't be at all surprised to find injected EPO into their eyeballs every morning.
Good post.

Had the good fortune to meet Robbie McEwen a few years back, get a pic together and all that. Simply told him ... that despite all the shyte and all the bad publicity going on in pro cycling ... that I really appreciated the efforts of he and fellow riders ... in bringing to fans ... epic sports entertainment. Have watched pro cycling for a long time, will continue to do so. Beyond that, got no expectations.
 
Re:

What a big week it has been in cycling!

When the previous couple of months (and next couple looked likely to be) had been pretty damn boring :D

I don't know much about the doping and how much can be gained performance wise out of these 'lesser' drugs, so I think a key thing is to establish (in court; for it seems to have already been established in the clinic) that Froome's drug was likely used as a cover for something more. This was really the key with Contador. Clenbuterol in itself doesn't appear to be a big deal.

Froome of course also has an issue with just how far he is over the limit. If he was 5, 10, even 20% over.....but DOUBLE?!

As far as racing the Tour next year goes, it's up to the authorities (I'd prefer that he didn't as I like Kwiatkowski and he might be able to ride for GC, and I don't mind Thomas either). IF he does race the Tour, then no fan should take matters into their own hands on the road to disrupt him and the race. Anyone bludging on the side of the road who wants have a go at someone who is busting their arse for 3,000 kms.....needs to be decked themselves. Not even Armstrong deserved that.

And the French (and Europeans in general) should be used to drugs controversy by now. When Contador rode in 2011 I don't recall much of an uproar, and he was sort of suspended by then, right?

In anycase, the parallel's with Froome and Contador here are interesting. Froome may well end up coming back and winning the 2018 Vuelta, just as Contador won the 2012 Vuelta. Only this is unlikely to be 'just as'.

There was the suggestion in this thread that Froome will become more popular - as Contador did - post ban, because he won't be as strong a rider. But I think that Contador became more popular because of the way that he rode. Okay, so he rode in this way partly because he was no longer as dominant, but I don't think that just any rider would ride like Fuente De, Formigal, Nice, given those circumstances. And I don't see Froome riding like that post ban. Riding conservatively and picking up third and fourth place finishers is unlikely to give him a lot more fans in the cycling community, in the way that Contador's comeback did.
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
What a big week it has been in cycling!

When the previous couple of months (and next couple looked likely to be) had been pretty damn boring :D
Let's be honest: the Clinic needed this. We haven't had red meat for a long time. It used to happen more often (pre-dating CN forums): Tyler in 2004; Floyd in 2006; Vino/Rasmussen in 2007; Contador (and Floyd's confession) in 2010; the Reasoned Decision in 2012. During this period, there was almost always a big case going on.

Since then, no really big names. DiLuca doesn't count, as he was over the hill when he tested positive. Horner's team took him out, but he wasn't actually sanctioned. When the Clinic doesn't have a big case to chew on, it degenerates into "we know, even if we can't prove" arguments that do get boring. Optimists will say this is the new normal in a clean(er) peloton, but there were enough smaller fish like Impey and JTL to question that. Froome's case, at the minimum, will be a teachable moment, like all those that preceded it.

By the way, Michelle has the best take on that. When asked whether her hubby is a doper, she reportedly responded, "Not fully."
 
Re: Re:

gryphon said:
brownbobby said:
gryphon said:
"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.

Incorrect.

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by any of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is split into two bottles and the analysis of the second bottle confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the first bottle.

Now, Froome is given the opportunity to reduce the sanction under the following:

10.5.1 Reduction of Sanctions for Specified Substances or Contaminated Products for Violations of Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.

10.5.1.1 Specified Substances Where the anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance, and the Athlete or other Person can establish No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years of Ineligibility, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

So, let's be clear: Froome has broken a rule.
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance. It is a specified substance. Your own post distinguishes between the two and illustrates why he is now being given the opportunity to try and prove he's not broken any rules.

But I sense I'm fighting a losing battle here trying to explain, so if you cannot see this then so be it, continue to believe that you are correct.

I will continue to understand the facts and the rules as I see them.
 
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold. Froome's level is above the threshold, so at this point, he's broken a rule. If he can explain how he could have obtained that level without breaking another rule--limiting the amount of drug he could take in a specific time period--then he presumably won't be sanctioned. But he won't be sanctioned not because he didn't break a rule, but because of a sufficient explanation for why he broke the rule.

Killing someone is against the law, but if you kill someone in self-defense, you might get off. That doesn't mean you didn't break the law, it just means the law recognizes exceptions. (I can already see some lawyers jumping in on this, but I think it's a reasonable view).
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
gregrowlerson said:
What a big week it has been in cycling!

When the previous couple of months (and next couple looked likely to be) had been pretty damn boring :D
Let's be honest: the Clinic needed this. We haven't had red meat for a long time. It used to happen more often (pre-dating CN forums): Tyler in 2004; Floyd in 2006; Vino/Rasmussen in 2007; Contador (and Floyd's confession) in 2010; the Reasoned Decision in 2012. During this period, there was almost always a big case going on.

Since then, no really big names. DiLuca doesn't count, as he was over the hill when he tested positive. Horner's team took him out, but he wasn't actually sanctioned. When the Clinic doesn't have a big case to chew on, it degenerates into "we know, even if we can't prove" arguments that do get boring. Optimists will say this is the new normal in a clean(er) peloton, but there were enough smaller fish like Impey and JTL to question that. Froome's case, at the minimum, will be a teachable moment, like all those that preceded it.

By the way, Michelle has the best take on that. When asked whether her hubby is a doper, she reportedly responded, "Not fully."
That's from the Kimmage interview (but not exactly about Froome himself)
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-2-30394950.html

CF: Yeah, I mean going to Vinokourov’s thing . . . this guy is a big icon in cycling. He has a retirement party here (Monaco),and there’s going to be a lot of influential cycling people here . . .

PK: He’s a *** cheat.

CF: (Laughs) You said that.

MC: I don’t think Chris fully understood that (Vinokourov) had doped.

CF: No, I knew.

MC: Not fully.
 
Re: Re:

Electress said:
Alpe73 said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
Between the rails of broader reality ... a post that will resonate as ‘fair’ with the majority of cycling fans. Good stuff.
Depends on the cycling fans. In my little corner of the UK, we've all been doubters for years. Not all are quite as happy as I at this time, but I'd say none felt it was unexpected. Kind of depends who you hang with.

As for the 'we like winners' and don't much care about panache...if we have to go and speak for the nation as a whole, I'd rather say 'we' famously like underdogs. Froome's problem is that Sky aren't that. Indeed, I think the Grauniad article has it right - the winning behaviours, RVs, uber-dominance etc etc. is a big part of the problem.

All that said, I don't think most folks really give a toss. Froome isn't and has never been a very popular figure compared to almost any of his UK contemporaries - certain 'sports writers' have even written articles bemoaning he's underappreciated. And there's been so many stories about drugs in sports, most people I know are jaded and cynical about all sport. There's folks they want to believe in, so kind of suspend disbelief...and all the rest that they wouldn't be at all surprised to find injected EPO into their eyeballs every morning.
I agree. Almost entirely.

're the underdogs, again I agree....of course they're not underdogs now, but they made a good job of painting themselves as such in the beginning....

new team, no British rider ever won the TDF, we gonna attempt to do it in five years. Never been done before but were gonna try to pull off the impossible. And now with a guy raised in Africa. Used to ride in sandshoes and sleep in mud huts to train. Even used to compete with a tropical disease holding him back etc etc

Underdogs!!

Pulled em right in, now the fans are hooked.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold. Froome's level is above the threshold, so at this point, he's broken a rule. If he can explain how he could have obtained that level without breaking another rule--limiting the amount of drug he could take in a specific time period--then he presumably won't be sanctioned. But he won't be sanctioned not because he didn't break a rule, but because of a sufficient explanation for why he broke the rule.

Killing someone is against the law, but if you kill someone in self-defense, you might get off. That doesn't mean you didn't break the law, it just means the law recognizes exceptions. (I can already see some lawyers jumping in on this, but I think it's a reasonable view).
I'm not confusing anything

You conveniently clipped an important part of that regulation. Here it is in full.

S3. Beta-2 Agonists

All beta-2 agonists are prohibited at all times by any route of administration (oral, inhaled, injected), except for:

Inhaled Albuterol (also called salbutamol) in dosages under 1600 micrograms (mcg) in any 24-hour period (not to exceed 800 mcg in 12 hours)


Taking salbutamol in doseages above prescribed levels is prohibited. Having high levels of of salbutamol in your urine is not prohibited. It is a threshold set that suggests the doseage limit may have been breached.

Having high levels of the substance in your urine can in theory still occur without having taken more than the permitted dose. In theory at least

Hence AAF. Not doping violation. Yet. No rules have been broken, or at least proven to be broken. Yet. Significantly though the onus is now on Froome to prove he hasn't broken any rules.

Didn't we cover all this earlier in the week.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold.....

I'm not confusing anything....
merckx index was being generous, and you are correct, you were not confusing anything ;)
 
Re: Re:

sittingbison said:
brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
You are wrong. You have gone to some trouble to quote a passage from the rules which demonstrates that you are wrong.

Salbutamol is not a 'prohibited substance.
Yes, it is. It's on the prohibited list:

All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited.
Including, but not limited to:

...

Salbutamol
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2016-09-29_-_wada_prohibited_list_2017_eng_final.pdf

You're confusing non-threshold substances, which are prohibited at any level, with threshold substances, like salbutamol, which are prohibited above a specific threshold.....

I'm not confusing anything....
merckx index was being generous, and you are correct, you were not confusing anything ;)
Here come the pitchforks...
 
"Afshin Novibi • an hour ago

Read an interview where they were talking to some retired Dutch riders and both of them said indirectly that he is doping. However one of them felt he won’t in anyway be able to escape a suspension while the other thought he may very well do due to all the power and money the SKY team has.

Long story short the idea is that the stuff can help u lose fat and gain muscle if taken off season in very high dosages. This would mean he must have had a blood transfusion the night before and the blood would have been from a time where he was on high usage."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson-chris-froome-had-no-special-treatment-from-the-uci/#comment-3666049680


^ anyone (Dutch) know what interview he's talking about?
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
If cycling really is as massive as you claim it is (an argument we have been hearing for years and it always seemed more hopeful than anything) why do all sky books end in the bargain bin by Christmas of their release year. Why was Froome only 3rd favourite to win the sports person of the country award in a year where he had what could easily be described as the most successful cycling season Of the century so far.
Why is the tour de France shown on a 5th rate cable channel- itv4 and not by a major tv station like it is In many countries that haven't had a tdf winner in decades (some of whom May even show the vuelta or giro on the first channel).
If Froome is such a usain bolt with such a wide fanbase, how comes even before any scandals we saw time after time that the public response to him was overwhelmingly negative?

Yeah, we just arent buying the "b-b'b you guys should be jealous because He has a gazillion fans".
arguments.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
brownbobby said:
Tonton said:
sittingbison said:
Panache

Virenque, Jaja, Pirata, Diablo etc got it in spades that's why you (we) still like them

Not Wiggo or Dawg. Panachless
Good point. Being the devil's advocate, I would argue that for a Brit, '13 Ventoux or '15 PSM are glorious. It's in the eyes of each of us. And the running man episode still showed in highlights, although it never happened since Portal went whining to the officials and results were "adjusted". Now for Wiggo...I can't find a glorious moment :eek: . Or maybe him trying to chase Froome :D . Now that was courage.
You present the Devils advocate view very well I think.

Your earlier comments almost acknowledge that, eh, we don't like doping, but it happens. So if you're gonna do it, do it with panache, don't take the piss too much, and were still gonna like what we like.

Now, you have to understand that for some, I'd even say most, in the U.K., panache isn't something we care so much about. I'm not just talking cycling here, I'm talking sport in general. What we do love is a good story. And we like winners. If we find someone who wins things, and sells us a good story, overcoming a tough upbringing, adversity in earlier life, overcoming all obstacles to achieve greatness, then for some we've got a hero.

Now we've all seen through all this, we've done our research, we've been with the story from the start. We know it's all BS. But for everyone of us, there are many more who think they know Chris Froome because they read the climb. He fits the bill. If only he was actually born in the U.K., and he did something other than ride a bike, he'd be our perfect hero. But we still like him. We still gonna cheer for him when he's showing all those foreigners what British courage and ambition can achieve.

In the microclimate of the Clinic, His fate is sealed. He's busted. Done. But step outside into the wider world, and he's still very much alive and kicking. He's had more column inches in the UK this week than he's had in the previous 5 years, but outside of the specialist press, and the inner circle of 'proper' cycling fans, the number of messages of support, the "eh we believe in you Chris" plastered across social media is overwhelmingly positive for him.

Don't forget cycling has grown enormously in the U.K. In recent years. The casual cycling fan, the ones who know all they need to know about Froome from reading his biography, far outnumbers the 'real' cycling fans. And their voices are just as loud.

I'm not going to try and tell you where I stand on this. You think what you think.

But I'm on the ground in the UK, I'm amongst the cycling fans, new and old. This is my report of how it's looking in my little corner of the British Isles. Froome ain't dead yet. He's very much alive and kicking.

Only time will tell for how long he stays that way.
If cycling really is as massive as you claim it is (an argument we have been hearing for years and it always seemed more hopeful than anything) why do all sky books end in the bargain bin by Christmas of their release year. Why was Froome only 3rd favourite to win the sports person of the country award in a year where he had what could easily be described as the most successful cycling season Of the century so far.
Why is the tour de France shown on a 5th rate cable channel- itv4 and not by a major tv station like it is In many countries that haven't had a tdf winner in decades (some of whom May even show the vuelta or giro on the first channel).
If Froome is such a usain bolt with such a wide fanbase, how comes even before any scandals we saw time after time that the public response to him was overwhelmingly negative?

Yeah, we just arent buying the "b-b'b you guys should be jealous because He has a gazillion fans".
arguments.
I didn't say cycling was massive. Not once. Ever.

I said it has grown enormously (inferred, if not stated, from a low starting point as a minority sport). This is a fact. Growth can only ever be measured relative to a starting point.

But eh, don't let what I actually said get in the way of what you want me to have said so that you can have your almost obsessive little peck at everything I ever post.
 
Nov 4, 2017
6
0
1,530
Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
"Afshin Novibi • an hour ago

Read an interview where they were talking to some retired Dutch riders and both of them said indirectly that he is doping. However one of them felt he won’t in anyway be able to escape a suspension while the other thought he may very well do due to all the power and money the SKY team has.

Long story short the idea is that the stuff can help u lose fat and gain muscle if taken off season in very high dosages. This would mean he must have had a blood transfusion the night before and the blood would have been from a time where he was on high usage."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cookson-chris-froome-had-no-special-treatment-from-the-uci/#comment-3666049680


^ anyone (Dutch) know what interview he's talking about?
I guess he is referring to this article.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2207378-het-is-onwaarschijnlijk-dat-froome-hiermee-wegkomt.html

It is an interview with Danny Nelissen, Thijs Zonneveld and Maarten Ducrot.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Let's be honest: the Clinic needed this. We haven't had red meat for a long time. It used to happen more often (pre-dating CN forums): Tyler in 2004; Floyd in 2006; Vino/Rasmussen in 2007; Contador (and Floyd's confession) in 2010; the Reasoned Decision in 2012. During this period, there was almost always a big case going on.

Since then, no really big names. DiLuca doesn't count, as he was over the hill when he tested positive. Horner's team took him out, but he wasn't actually sanctioned. When the Clinic doesn't have a big case to chew on, it degenerates into "we know, even if we can't prove" arguments that do get boring. Optimists will say this is the new normal in a clean(er) peloton, but there were enough smaller fish like Impey and JTL to question that. Froome's case, at the minimum, will be a teachable moment, like all those that preceded it.
The "we know, and we know we know, but don't ask us how we know, we just know, and if you can't see why we know, then you're a Froome fanboi" blather was truly horrible.

Now, I'm fully prepared to believe in the The Clinic again!

"Teachable moment ==> for whom?
 
buckle said:
UCI calling Martin to shut up? Now obviously thing are all gonna go fair from this point onwards
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY