Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
Ullrich was close one year out of five. About Quintana 2015 close. Hardly a huge rivalry.
 
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.
Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
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.
you can replace unbelievable unreal ....

but good try, the others are even more bad (suspicious) :lol:
 
Jul 29, 2016
634
0
0
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
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.
Ullrich was close one year out of five. About Quintana 2015 close. Hardly a huge rivalry.
LA consider JU biggest rival in those years and majority of public as well. Everyone was waiting for July what the shape of JU will be and correct with few exceptions it was not that good. Sometimes it was not his mistake, I remember, that one year he crashed into team car during the training just few days before the beginning of the Tour... .
 
Why are they going directly to CADF? Seems to me the simplest and most likely reason is that LADS planned to give Froome a suspension, knew for certain he wouldn’t accept it, so why not just skip that step? If they have been in communication, as the Gazzetta article indicates, both sides might have wanted this. At that point, there would be nothing to lose (unless Froome wanted to go directly to CAS), and definitely something to gain—a quicker resolution to the case.

The previous report of the short suspension, followed by its quick denial, now makes a little more sense, too. The correct part of that report (assuming this latest report is correct!) is that Froome has agreed to go to the CADF. A short suspension has surely been mentioned as one possibility. Even if Froome isn’t interested in this (see below), after all these negotiations, everything would have been suggested by one side or the other.

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.
Yes, that’s possible. But there’s another factor at play as well. When you go before a judge or a panel on a doping case, your explanation is weighed against the alternative possibilities. (A good example of this process is found in the Contador CAS case). Let’s say Froome’s team has come up with a physiological explanation for the positive. This theory can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt; they can’t go back to the Vuelta and make all the necessary measurements to establish this. What they can do at best as show that their scenario could have happened. E.g., if they want to argue that another drug inhibited excretion of salbutamol, they could cite studies demonstrating this other drug has this effect, and provide evidence that Froome had this other drug in his body at the time.

How likely it is that this theory will be accepted depends partly on the strength of the evidence for it, obviously, but it also depends on the strength of the evidence for alternative explanations. One alternative explanation is negligence. If Froome admits he isn’t sure if he might have made a mistake in his doses, then that alternative theory is strengthened, and conversely, the theory his team is proposing is weakened. To maximize the probability of their theory being accepted, they have to take negligence off the table as much as possible. The judge will still consider it (though Contador denied taking any supplements, the CAS panel still considered it, and in fact ruled that as the most likely explanation), but it will be given less weight if Froome is adamant that he didn’t make a mistake.

This is why Froome's approach is high risk. As long as he wants to be exonerated completely, he has to deny any possibility of negligence. Maybe at some point he could change his mind, as Parker suggests, but only if he's willing to give up on his alternative theory prematurely, before he's completely committed to it. He can't stick with it all the way, then, after receiving a long suspension, concede he could have made a mistake. He has to go one way or the other by the time he reaches CADF.
 
Re: Re:

lartiste said:
LA consider JU biggest rival in those years and majority of public as well. Everyone was waiting for July what the shape of JU will be and correct with few exceptions it was not that good. Sometimes it was not his mistake, I remember, that one year he crashed into team car during the training just few days before the beginning of the Tour... .
In seven years of Armstrong winning, Ullrich never wore the Yellow Jersey. How many times did he take time on Armstrong? The 2003 Time Trial. Anything else? I can't remember anything.

As rivalries go it was as one-sided as Tom and Jerry. The same with Contador v Schleck.

In the real world, Contador and Quintana have actually beaten Froome in a Grand Tour
 
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"
Beat them at their own game, aye? Well, sure, by exponetially increasing the capital base, Sky was able to put together a team of the best riders and hire, mostly, old European DSs, with "top shelf" and avant garde dope, UCI compliance, to imperialistically subjugate the competition. Makes things a tad bit easier. Add a state of art PR (propaganda) campaign orchestrated by Murdoch pros and you have everyone believing in the mystical teachings of Dave about marginal gains and "warming down" after the fisnish as the secret formulas of success. The reality though is that the others simply didn't have the budgets to keep up and the results at the Tour, the greatest coroporate cycling extravaganza in the world, make this unequivocal.

Got to give them credit, despite everything else, for leading people to buying into it.

So it really wasn't necessary for the roster you mention to then behave in the peleton like Snape's Gryffindor team at Hogwarts. This doesn't exactly engender any sympathy when things go south.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
macbindle said:
One is angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged one's pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as one dislikes bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw one out of one's fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.
Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here
It's a rhetorical use of 'we'. ;)

But just for you I've edited my quoted post and removed any trace of 'we' :)
 
Re:

2221721#p2221721]rick james said:
And let me get this right, you couldn’t give two dog **** if someone injects a barrel load of EPO as long as the don’t to try people that they are clean?

Amazing logic
Personally? No, I don't really care what they do that much. The Tour has always been a fiction. I don't know of any time when it hasn't involved vast quantities of substances to enable the heroic feats of athleticism.

But that wasn't really the point of my post. I was distilling and satirising some of the disjointed thinking I've seen expressed here, which I find a little hypocritical. Possibly unintentionally, but hypocritical nevertheless.

My view on Team Sky? I hope they disappear. Not because I think they cheat, because on that basis there wouldn't be that many left on the start line and certainly none of the stars. No, far more to do with what Rhubroma talks about above with what you might call the "Manchester United" effect.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
rick james said:
macbindle said:
One is angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged one's pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as one dislikes bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw one out of one's fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.
Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here
It's a rhetorical use of 'we'. ;)

But just for you I've edited my quoted post and removed any trace of 'we' :)
you speak for me if no-one else :D
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
My pleasure :D :D
my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but i have to say that is one of the best analogies i've heard in a long time. Brilliant! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
My pleasure :D :D
my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....
I've just had to Google 'Big Fun'. My eyes my eyes! Aaaaargh!! :eek:

I see that they were active between 88 and 94, and that explains why I've never heard of them. I spent a fair portion of that era in warehouses, dancing in dungarees (!) with glowsticks in my hands and a Vicks inhaler up each nostril. I still think the 30-odd members of Team Sky could have beaten the 2000 or so of us hands down in terms of sheer quantities of substances ingested into our bodies.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
2221721#p2221721]rick james said:
And let me get this right, you couldn’t give two dog **** if someone injects a barrel load of EPO as long as the don’t to try people that they are clean?

Amazing logic
Personally? No, I don't really care what they do that much. The Tour has always been a fiction. I don't know of any time when it hasn't involved vast quantities of substances to enable the heroic feats of athleticism.

But that wasn't really the point of my post. I was distilling and satirising some of the disjointed thinking I've seen expressed here, which I find a little hypocritical. Possibly unintentionally, but hypocritical nevertheless.

My view on Team Sky? I hope they disappear. Not because I think they cheat, because on that basis there wouldn't be that many left on the start line and certainly none of the stars. No, far more to do with what Rhubroma talks about above with what you might call the "Manchester United" effect.
The degree to which Sky has made budget size all-determining has not been good for the sport.
 
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"
I kind of agree with most of this but have a different take on the oft quoted proclamations of 'new cleanliness' from the outset by Sky. I don't think it was anything to do with hooking the 'British public'. Well not solely or even primarily at least.

See, from the outset, Sky made no secret of their ambitions. They didn't just set out to become a WT team and see how things went from there, as most new teams would. They shouted from the rooftops that they were going to win the TDF, and they had the budget to back up the ambition. One thing they could predict with absolute certainty was that upon achieving those ambitions the doping questions would come thick and fast, the main topic at every press conference they were duty bound to attend when carrying the yellow jersey.

So what they did was simply begin fielding the questions before they were even asked. They decided on attack being the best form of defence. Since day one the questions and accusations of doping continue to flow as predicted. Sky continue to deny them.

I mean really, what else does anyone expect them to do. Is there a team or rider in recent history who doesn't do exactly the same, continue to claim to be clean, until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they have no choice other than to hold their hands up and resort instead to presenting themselves as 'reformed' and the new voice of clean cycling?

Admittedly most riders just keep their mouths shut and say nothing until asked before denying any wrongdoing. But Sky/Froome arent afforded the luxury of that option. They're asked about it on a daily basis.

Brailsford tried the apporach of banning doping questions from the press. Didn't go down too well. So what do we want....to not mention doping, or to hear BS denials of all things doping related? Because if you want to hear people confess and come clean about doping every time a question is asked then i fear you may be in for a lifetime of disappointment.

So the reason Sky come out with more BS about doping than any other team? They're asked to comment on doping more than any other team. Simple really.

It's just a different direction for the merry go round of BS.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
My pleasure :D :D
my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....
I've just had to Google 'Big Fun'. My eyes my eyes! Aaaaargh!! :eek:

I see that they were active between 88 and 94, and that explains why I've never heard of them. I spent a fair portion of that era in warehouses, dancing in dungarees (!) with glowsticks in my hands and a Vicks inhaler up each nostril. I still think the 30-odd members of Team Sky could have beaten the 2000 or so of us hands down in terms of sheer quantities of substances ingested into our bodies.
Yea that was my warehouse period as well (though from 84), among ex-cons, heroin and crack addicts and generally cut throat swine of dubious legality. They never could quite relate to my fascination with the pavé of northern France, or the snaking climbs of the Alpes. The heroine and crack addicts, though, could have given Team Sky a run for their money in terms of low body fat percentage. :D
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
macbindle said:
gillan1969 said:
macbindle said:
My pleasure :D :D
my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....
I've just had to Google 'Big Fun'. My eyes my eyes! Aaaaargh!! :eek:

I see that they were active between 88 and 94, and that explains why I've never heard of them. I spent a fair portion of that era in warehouses, dancing in dungarees (!) with glowsticks in my hands and a Vicks inhaler up each nostril. I still think the 30-odd members of Team Sky could have beaten the 2000 or so of us hands down in terms of sheer quantities of substances ingested into our bodies.
Yea that was my warehouse period as well (though from 84), among ex-cons, heroin and crack addicts and generally cut throat swine of dubious legality. They never could quite relate to my fascination with the pavé of northern France, or the snaking climbs of the Alpes. The heroine and crack addicts, though, could have given Team Sky a run for their money in terms of low body fat percentage. :D
Goodness me, those parties sound grim. You should have come up North, an altogether happier crowd. The nicest people in the world, I loved them all. At least that's how I remember it at the time :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby 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"
I kind of agree with most of this but have a different take on the oft quoted proclamations of 'new cleanliness' from the outset by Sky. I don't think it was anything to do with hooking the 'British public'. Well not solely or even primarily at least.

See, from the outset, Sky made no secret of their ambitions. They didn't just set out to become a WT team and see how things went from there, as most new teams would. They shouted from the rooftops that they were going to win the TDF, and they had the budget to back up the ambition. One thing they could predict with absolute certainty was that upon achieving those ambitions the doping questions would come thick and fast, the main topic at every press conference they were duty bound to attend when carrying the yellow jersey.

So what they did was simply begin fielding the questions before they were even asked. They decided on attack being the best form of defence. Since day one the questions and accusations of doping continue to flow as predicted. Sky continue to deny them.

I mean really, what else does anyone expect them to do. Is there a team or rider in recent history who doesn't do exactly the same, continue to claim to be clean, until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they have no choice other than to hold their hands up and resort instead to presenting themselves as 'reformed' and the new voice of clean cycling?

Admittedly most riders just keep their mouths shut and say nothing until asked before denying any wrongdoing. But Sky/Froome arent afforded the luxury of that option. They're asked about it on a daily basis.

Brailsford tried the apporach of banning doping questions from the press. Didn't go down too well. So what do we want....to not mention doping, or to hear BS denials of all things doping related? Because if you want to hear people confess and come clean about doping every time a question is asked then i fear you may be in for a lifetime of disappointment.

So the reason Sky come out with more BS about doping than any other team? They're asked to comment on doping more than any other team. Simple really.

It's just a different direction for the merry go round of BS.
Well you conveniently leave out that Team Sky invested much in a propaganda campaign that precisely announced: "We are doing it clean," "We have a no tollerance policy," "We have a non needle policy," "Nobody that works with us is going to have been in any way involved with the sordid past of this sport," etc. Their pretentions far exceeded those of the other teams. It's only natural that the one making the boldest clains (and the most fuss about them), will be given greatest accountability.

Sky didn't just want to win the Tour, but snuff out the competition altogether with its incomparable budget. And then Dave didn't want any doping questions. It's not difficult to imagine how this generated antipathy toward Sky, both within the sport and among fans.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
brownbobby 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"
I kind of agree with most of this but have a different take on the oft quoted proclamations of 'new cleanliness' from the outset by Sky. I don't think it was anything to do with hooking the 'British public'. Well not solely or even primarily at least.

See, from the outset, Sky made no secret of their ambitions. They didn't just set out to become a WT team and see how things went from there, as most new teams would. They shouted from the rooftops that they were going to win the TDF, and they had the budget to back up the ambition. One thing they could predict with absolute certainty was that upon achieving those ambitions the doping questions would come thick and fast, the main topic at every press conference they were duty bound to attend when carrying the yellow jersey.

So what they did was simply begin fielding the questions before they were even asked. They decided on attack being the best form of defence. Since day one the questions and accusations of doping continue to flow as predicted. Sky continue to deny them.

I mean really, what else does anyone expect them to do. Is there a team or rider in recent history who doesn't do exactly the same, continue to claim to be clean, until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they have no choice other than to hold their hands up and resort instead to presenting themselves as 'reformed' and the new voice of clean cycling?

Admittedly most riders just keep their mouths shut and say nothing until asked before denying any wrongdoing. But Sky/Froome arent afforded the luxury of that option. They're asked about it on a daily basis.

Brailsford tried the apporach of banning doping questions from the press. Didn't go down too well. So what do we want....to not mention doping, or to hear BS denials of all things doping related? Because if you want to hear people confess and come clean about doping every time a question is asked then i fear you may be in for a lifetime of disappointment.

So the reason Sky come out with more BS about doping than any other team? They're asked to comment on doping more than any other team. Simple really.

It's just a different direction for the merry go round of BS.
Well you conveniently leave out that Team Sky invested much in a propaganda campaign that precisely announced: "We are doing it clean," "We have a no tollerance policy," "We have a non needle policy," "Nobody that works with us is going to have been in any way involved with the sordid past of this sport," etc. Their pretentions far exceeded those of the other teams. It's only natural that the one making the boldest clains (and the most fuss about them), will be given greatest accountability.

Sky didn't just want to win the Tour, but snuff out the competition altogether with its incomparable budget. And then Dave didn't want any doping questions. It's not difficult to imagine how this generated antipathy toward Sky, both within the sport and among fans.
I haven't missed this out at all, conveniently or otherwise. It's all part of the attack being the best form of defence strategy, which was the opening point of my post
 
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.
If CF admitted guilt and took punishment, it's a lose-lose situation 100 percent. Why go down that road unless you're prepared to throw it all away? Even that wouldn't satisfy the public/media: They will want hime to come clean, as it were, about his whole program from Day 1 -- and the answers won't satisfy in any event. By necessity that would bring down Sky and every rider associated with the team. We can see how US Postal riders remain in the cycling wilderness.

As you say, probably only HE knows, but hard to imagine others on Sky wouldn't be aware if the AAF was anything other than an unexpected reaction to legal dose. Assuming CF did nothing wrong, then he HAS to follow the course he's taking.

It's a strange situation. I find myself chasing my tail a bit.

The most likely scenario is that CF/Sky believe they can introduce reasonable doubt, whether the AAF is indicative of planned doping or some hitherto unforeseen anomaly/reaction etc. Because I don't think it really matters what the cause was -- the defense will have to be good enough to cover both instances.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts