Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1099 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
Don't agree. To my mind its because his story is difficult to believe. The other big hitters in the sport (e.g. Dumoulin, Sagan, Quintana, Nibali) were all earmarked for greatness at an early age and their progression is at least vaguely plausible.

This is not the case for Froome. He's come from so low and has risen so high so its inevitable that he'll be scrutinised so closely.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
Froome gets flack because of his 'transformation', I don't think I need to post the Brailsford diagram again do I? :) Well, that and his gangly styleeeeee.......
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
Because for the short period when Wiggins was winning, most road cycling aficionados hadn't been exposed to years of BS from Brailsford yet. Which supports the point that it is Brailsford's hypocrisy and lies, rather than just the winning, that turns so many people against Sky.

And the world class BS and lies only really began when they tried to justify Froome's transformation.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
I think a lot of it also comes from how they ride races especially the mountain stages - ie very similar to USP. Get the yellow, then put your team at the front keeping the pace high protecting your leader thereby preventing any serious attacks. To be honest I'm not sure there is really any other way of winning a GT. You need a strong team for it - using your superior budget to buy strong riders (who are happy to play second fiddle) helps as well.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
I think a lot of it also comes from how they ride races especially the mountain stages - ie very similar to USP. Get the yellow, then put your team at the front keeping the pace high protecting your leader thereby preventing any serious attacks. To be honest I'm not sure there is really any other way of winning a GT. You need a strong team for it - using your superior budget to buy strong riders (who are happy to play second fiddle) helps as well.
Forgot to add.

Having a strong team then obviously raises questions, for which there would be a myriad of answers (money, training, drugs, etc.).
 
DFA123: Yep. I don't believe that there would be the same reaction and scrutiny if, for example, Quintana or Nibali had won the last few Tours instead of Froome. Of course people would still be suspicious - but it wouldn't be like this - because their teams are not being run by a massive hypocrite who constantly rubs people up the wrong way.
Well CF might not have won without being protected the entire time by a megabuck train.
That might be part of the h.a.t.e - the totally controlling attitude of Team Sky. It messes up the racing aspect. Stage 15 of the 2016 Vuelta (Formigal !) was a very rare exception when that control was lost - and what a difference it made.

This aspect was the same with Lance
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
TheSpud said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
I think a lot of it also comes from how they ride races especially the mountain stages - ie very similar to USP. Get the yellow, then put your team at the front keeping the pace high protecting your leader thereby preventing any serious attacks. To be honest I'm not sure there is really any other way of winning a GT. You need a strong team for it - using your superior budget to buy strong riders (who are happy to play second fiddle) helps as well.
Forgot to add.

Having a strong team then obviously raises questions, for which there would be a myriad of answers (money, training, drugs, etc.).
In cycling, almost anything you do raises questions. You really can't win......well you can win,but that also raises questions :lol:
 
the biggest difference is that most cycling fans think that only contador could go contador's path, only nibali could have nibali's way to being great cyclists and so on, while dozens of riders would've easily replicate froome's way. anything you need is just to fare at sky at the right moment, heal from bazzilla, stock up tue's for all possible occasions and start crushing opposition with flying colors. :)
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
"In cases where there is no provisional suspension, the UCI issues a press release only if the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal finds that the rider has committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation. If the UCI Anti-Doping Tribunal acquits the rider, the latter has a right to ask that the decision is not publicly disclosed"
But...
Has any rider ever referred to the Anti-Doping Tribunal since it was formed in January 2015 ever been acquitted, and we just don't know about it, because the case is unpublished?
I think the answer is no, so that is one thing remaining to verify - is it true that every single cyclist who didn't accept a suspension deal, since 2015, lost their case at the level of the Anti-Doping Tribunal, and those who appealed from that point, lost at CAS ? Could not find any examples of acquittal
A case of a cyclist who tested too high for salbutamol and subsequently got cleared would never be know about publicly (if there are no leaks). There may be many, there may be none.
 
Re:

dacooley said:
the biggest difference is that most cycling fans think that only contador could go contador's path, only nibali could have nibali's way to being great cyclists and so on, while dozens of riders would've easily replicate froome's way. anything you need is just to fare at sky at the right moment, heal from bazzilla, stock up tue's for all possible occasions and start crushing opposition with flying colors. :)
If dozens of riders could've easily replicated Froome's success why haven't they? In reality I think only one in a hundred would have ever made it out of Africa.
 
Yawn.

The flack is mainly due to ridiculous Sky PR, stomping the opponents by finance & da train, Froome's ridiculous transformation and the more ridiculous house of card of explanations he has subsequently given.

For the Brailsford graph pedants - was Froome the non performing domestique about to be let go in 2011 or not? If his placement in the said graph does not indicate a less than enthusiastic take on his prospects, what does it indicate?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
Well in fairness in the wake of Postal it was gonna be real difficult for Sky to orchestrate an even more streamline 2.0 version of the US team, with shocking performances like Ventoux 2013, and not have the cycling media all over them. This was of course enhanced by Sky's own exploitation of the media outlet to build its clean narrative.

At any rate, as DFA123 put it so well, Sky kept up such a high profile that it hardly needed Armstrong to be in the possition it is right now. If you have to lie, where lying is not considered a venial sin as in the Latin countries, then its best to keep a low profile. Above all do not with corporate prepotency and excessive hubris present yourselfs as the paladins of clean living who came along to show inferiors how its done.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

The flack is mainly due to ridiculous Sky PR, stomping the opponents by finance & da train, Froome's ridiculous transformation and the more ridiculous house of card of explanations he has subsequently given.

For the Brailsford graph pedants - was Froome the non performing domestique about to be let go in 2011 or not? If his placement in the said graph does not indicate a less than enthusiastic take on his prospects, what does it indicate?
You tell me.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

The flack is mainly due to ridiculous Sky PR, stomping the opponents by finance & da train, Froome's ridiculous transformation and the more ridiculous house of card of explanations he has subsequently given.

For the Brailsford graph pedants - was Froome the non performing domestique about to be let go in 2011 or not? If his placement in the said graph does not indicate a less than enthusiastic take on his prospects, what does it indicate?
Yawn indeed....
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

The flack is mainly due to ridiculous Sky PR, stomping the opponents by finance & da train, Froome's ridiculous transformation and the more ridiculous house of card of explanations he has subsequently given.

For the Brailsford graph pedants - was Froome the non performing domestique about to be let go in 2011 or not? If his placement in the said graph does not indicate a less than enthusiastic take on his prospects, what does it indicate?
Take a puff on the inhaler
it should cure that Yawn.
;)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
DFA123 said:
Sky and Froome should have played it much more low key. The likes of Quintana, Nibali, Contador, Sagan, even Dumoulin - who is ludicrously suspicious - don't get anywhere near the same level of questioning about doping - despite being similarly high profile riders. They are not asked about it almost every time they face the press. I think that's in large part due to the fact that they and their teams haven't built their whole team and promotion effort around the fact that they are clean.
Sunweb bang the 'clean team' drum harder than any other team. Their boss is the Vice President of the MPCC and when they were Argos they even made an entire movie called 'Clean Spirit' which was all about them being a clean team.

Froome gets all the flack because he was the first dominant rider after the Armstrong affair became public and was admitted. The media missed the biggest story in sport (or rather avoided it) for years and they wanted a do-over. Froome is largely a proxy for Armstrong. Just look how quick those who accuse or insinuate Sky are doping are to draw comparisons to Armstrong.
Well but they had the numbers to prove it. They sucked!!! :D

What people don't like is the BS from Sky and Froome. Simple. Ah, and the sudden, very sudden transformation touches a sensitive cord with cycling fans. I guess, if you are not very talented, at least start doping very, very early so that people at least believe you. ;)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
dacooley said:
the biggest difference is that most cycling fans think that only contador could go contador's path, only nibali could have nibali's way to being great cyclists and so on, while dozens of riders would've easily replicate froome's way. anything you need is just to fare at sky at the right moment, heal from bazzilla, stock up tue's for all possible occasions and start crushing opposition with flying colors. :)
If dozens of riders could've easily replicated Froome's success why haven't they? In reality I think only one in a hundred would have ever made it out of Africa.
I'm not suggesting it directly. What a rider needs to become universally recognized champion are genetics, ability, guts, style, racing instincts, working etique of highest pedigree, etc. To be a champion like Froome and Armstrong you need only money and luck. That's the thing. ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The news that Sky had hired Leinders broke during the 2012 TdF which is of course the one Wiggo won. No negative sentiment :lol: :lol:

Surely you must remember this rant from Wiggo on one of the 2012 TdF rest days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9385050/Tour-de-France-2012-furious-Bradley-Wiggins-hits-out-over-drugs-slurs-as-Thibaut-Pinot-wins-stage-eight.html

“I say they’re just f------ w------. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. “It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s---, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C----.”

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The news that Sky had hired Leinders broke during the 2012 TdF which is of course the one Wiggo won. No negative sentiment :lol: :lol:

Surely you must remember this rant from Wiggo on one of the 2012 TdF rest days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9385050/Tour-de-France-2012-furious-Bradley-Wiggins-hits-out-over-drugs-slurs-as-Thibaut-Pinot-wins-stage-eight.html

“I say they’re just f------ w------. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. “It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s---, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C----.”

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph
Brendan Gallagher is one of most pro-Sky journalists. He was the ghost writer of Wiggins's first book. If he got fired on Murdoch's say so, how on earth is the doping obsessed Jeremy Whittle still at The Times.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
But there was very little negative sentiment towards Wiggins when he was winning.
:rolleyes:

The news that Sky had hired Leinders broke during the 2012 TdF which is of course the one Wiggo won. No negative sentiment :lol:

Surely you must remember this rant from Wiggo on one of the 2012 TdF rest days:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9385050/Tour-de-France-2012-furious-Bradley-Wiggins-hits-out-over-drugs-slurs-as-Thibaut-Pinot-wins-stage-eight.html

“I say they’re just f------ w------. I cannot be doing with people like that. It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can’t ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives. “It’s easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of s---, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that’s ultimately it. C----.”

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph
Brendan Gallagher is one of most pro-Sky journalists. He was the ghost writer of Wiggins's first book. If he got fired on Murdoch's say so, how on earth is the doping obsessed Jeremy Whittle still at The Times.
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)

Btw I found this corker from the Dawg in Gallagher's article about Bradley "No Negative Sentiment" Wiggins:

'His Team Sky colleague Chris Froome, who won Saturday’s stage, the first serious climb of the Tour, with Wiggins finishing just behind him to claim the yellow jersey, offered his full support. He tweeted: “Critics need to wake up and realise that cycling has evolved. Dedication and sacrifice = results. End of story!” '

Oh dear, Chris. That quote hasn't aged well :lol:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY