Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

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

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
 
silvergrenade said:
brownbobby said:
Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Now clearly that possibility isn't even going to be considered by most on this forum, but the only person who knows wether he's guilty or not is Chris Froome. The rest of us just think we know.
:) :)
It's the hope of hopes
It's the love of loves
This is the song for every man

God is watching us
God is watching us
God is watching us from a distance
 
Re: Re:

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
As I understand it negligence, which is what Ulissi admitted to, is tantamount to malice in terms of a rider being sanctioned. You know, all that troublesome stuff about a rider being responsible for what goes in his body.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Parker said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Partly agree, partly disagree because

- Salbutamol is not a strict liability drug because it is permitted below a certain level. That gives Froome some room to maneuver
- But, Froome did have a clear-cut positive, which was a level of salbutamol "off the charts" because higher than any other pro cyclist ever sanctioned by UCI
But Froome hasn't denied taking the drug in question unlike the other cases (Paolini aside). The case hinges on the correlation between the amount take and the amount expelled (and the possibility of negligence over malice). The other cases (excluding the bio-passports) are about drugs that shouldn't be there and mostly they aren't drugs you take by mistake.
As I understand it negligence, which is what Ulissi admitted to, is tantamount to malice in terms of a rider being sanctioned. You know, all that troublesome stuff about a rider being responsible for what goes in his body.
There's a difference with regards to intent. It won't get you off a sanction though - but will inform the nature of the sanction.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
rhubroma said:
pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling nations? If yes, on what grounds? As I mentioned in the LA Part 3 thread:

"Perhaps more then repressing the decade, as far as the current Anglo dominated narrative is concerned it's about a self-declared ethicalness (with Murdock media sponsorship in tow) to assume a leadership role of a movement in peril. In this sense the cultural parameters dovetale nicely into the business interests" (of the sport and its markets).

To clarify, Sky and British Cycling made a grand entrance into road cycling on the premise that they can show you how its done cleanly, with the implicit notion that British culture is more ethical and thus more suited to changing the sports image by example. The reality is that it was all a marketing ploy.
no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.
By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.
 
Re: Re:

No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling

no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.[/quote]

By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.[/quote]

By beating them consistently at their own game?

Yeah that does tend to riĺe people....by all accounts.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
No one doping isn't better than another. So Froome and Brailsford represent a better ethical model than the old European status quo from the traditional cycling

no, they dont. I wasnt thinking about the ethical stuff (they are and were so wrong with that)
I mean Sky shook and rattled a bit the tradition, the normal euro dopers tradition, the Astana Movistar Saxo super fuel found someone at their lever. and maybe some in the peloton and fans didnt like that. that didnt help them to be liked very much.


By all accounts, it's been Sky's way of treating the other teams as their class inferiors.[/quote]

By beating them consistently at their own game?

Yeah that does tend to riĺe people....by all accounts.[/quote]

Don't know what beating someone has to do with treating them as class inferiors, but I'm all ears.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
I am fine with the ban, he´s been caught. but it seems he´s the biggest problem in cycling and when he´s caught the old european status quo will be restoredd and good guys dopers from the traditional cycling nations will keep winning. is there a worse kind of doping? a journeyman doping or valverde/contador doping? it is the same. super fuel for them all.
so are fans really anti-doping or dont care if it´s not so obvious?
hoping the anti-doping catches Froome while looking at other dopers winning without being too angry. is this being anti-doping?
are we anti-doping just when riders we dislike are involved?
Tour de France multiple winner runs afoul of the rules is going to always be the biggest story. Add to that riding for the highest profile team in the sport, by design, and all this attention should be expected. Why it comes as a surprise to some is rather baffling. This "Oh poor Froome/Sky, setupon unfairly by the masses" attitude is just a symptom of the problem of ignoring the obvious, likely just to make it easier to deal with what has put many in a state of denial.

When you covet attention from the media for all the successes and then an equal amount of attention is given for the failures, why is the latter all of a sudden a case of unfair treatment?
 
Re: Re:

VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
So are we saying that Valverde's 2017 season pre-accident wasn't taking the p!ss?
 
Re: Re:

wansteadimp said:
VO2 Max said:
pastronef said:
Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.
Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.
So are we saying that Valverde's 2017 season pre-accident wasn't taking the p!ss?
Froome's been taking the piss since Vuelta 2011...it's like comparing 200 ng/ml with 2000 ng/ml ;)
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
macbindle said:
You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.
I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out. :)
I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky. :p
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"
 
Perhaps Froome should have doped heavily from his outset as a pro, thereby rendering himself less suspicious and garnering a profile like convicted doper such as Contador and Valverde.

Perhaps he shouldn't have joined an Anglo team that felt compelled to push the narrative of clean sport.

Perhaps then he'd be just another doping winner.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Perhaps Froome should have doped heavily from his outset as a pro, thereby rendering himself less suspicious and garnering a profile like convicted doper such as Contador and Valverde.

Perhaps he shouldn't have joined an Anglo team that felt compelled to push the narrative of clean sport.

Perhaps then he'd be just another doping winner.
bingo.
the public can be swayed so easily. just dope from the beginning, but dont dare join the club mid-way, otherwise you are the black sheep.
 
We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
Angliru said:
macbindle said:
You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.
I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out. :)
I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky. :p
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"
Now you know the text in bold is not true don't you?
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
pastronef said:
Angliru said:
macbindle said:
You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.
I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out. :)
I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky. :p
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"
Now you know the text in bold is not true don't you?
"nothing such hard" I should have written.
the vitriol towards Sky riders is top notch. for sure some snarky comments towards other teams/riders but I´ve seen sheer hate for Sky, Rapha, Pinarello, Richie Porte (even after he left), Froome, his family and many examples. blaming him for avoiding taxes in Monaco (not a word about Quintana or Sagan living there too, nor for Alberto/NIbali/Aru in Lugano)
ok, yellow jersey winner gathers the most attention, but sometimes it was hysterical on here and twitter
I know, I´ve repeated those things already in the past on these pages.
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re:

macbindle said:
We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.
This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.
 
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
macbindle said:
We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.
This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.
in the past years yes. this year he won it by a whisker, and was below par on the climbs.
Astana killed the 2014 Tour and the Hautacam stage. boom!

ps. I missed the "unbelievable"
it´s a matter of believing or not. for sure, as said before by MacBindle, it´s easier to "believe" ;) in convicted dopers like Valverde and Contador, who doped steadily and didnt have the transformation. that leaves us with less questions, both about the riders and about our perception of "fair" and normal and believable racing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY