Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1101 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

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
And you believe it's the same thing, do you? I don't. Doping itself is very wrong, but convincing everyone that you're champion of clean cycling, while you're probably the worst doper of them all, is much, much worse. That's the main reason for such hate.
 
Re:

Poursuivant said:
I don't see how he wins: their is a post a few pages ago showing how rare the athlete wins these things.

The question for me is: how long will the ban be?
Given the precedent established by the outcome of Ulissi's similar case (and the various arguments over genetic anomalies to explain positives); if Froome is somehow able to get off the hook, it will seem so evident that the system has been rigged to save one rider.

The question is can the sport afford another scandal of this magnitude?
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
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
And you believe it's the same thing, do you? I don't. Doping itself is very wrong, but convincing everyone that you're champion of clean cycling, while you're probably the worst doper of them all, is much, much worse. That's the main reason for such hate.
So tell me, what is acceptable to you? What would you do in his position? Remember you're going to be asked about doping in almost every press conference you ever do. No comment isn't an option. So tell me, what do you do in his position?

In cycling, the people most often forced to defend themselves against doping accusations are the ones consistently winning the biggest races.

Why are you surprised and outraged that the man consistently winning the biggest race in cycling is the one who most often tries to convince people he's not doping?
 
Re: Re:

Blanco said:
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
And you believe it's the same thing, do you? I don't. Doping itself is very wrong, but convincing everyone that you're champion of clean cycling, while you're probably the worst doper of them all, is much, much worse. That's the main reason for such hate.
As Ivan Illich taught
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
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
And you believe it's the same thing, do you? I don't. Doping itself is very wrong, but convincing everyone that you're champion of clean cycling, while you're probably the worst doper of them all, is much, much worse. That's the main reason for such hate.
So tell me, what is acceptable to you? What would you do in his position? Remember you're going to be asked about doping in almost every press conference you ever do. No comment isn't an option. So tell me, what do you do in his position?

In cycling, the people most often forced to defend themselves against doping accusations are the ones consistently winning the biggest races.

Why are you surprised and outraged that the man consistently winning the biggest race in cycling is the one who most often tries to convince people he's not doping?
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. They don't paint themselves as reformers of a corrupt sport, and then reveal themselves as the worst kind of moral crusaders - hypocrites.

Admittedly, this is largely the fault of Sky rather than Froome. But he could have toned it down or put a stop to it early on, if he didn't have to put up this charade. Just simply stating early on that he is clean and will refuse to answer more questions about it in the future, because it's damaging the sport having to talk about it all the time. But he (and Sky) chose not to, or couldn't do that - because being anti-doping is the one thing they seized upon to set them apart from the rest. They wanted to talk about doping all the time, because it was at the heart of their marketing policy. Now they have to reap what they sow.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Bolder 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.
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.
Froome is not on the wrong end of a criminal trial where the defendant is presumed innocent and the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond "reasonable doubt"

Instead Froome is on the wrong end of an AAF for elevated levels of a permitted substance and the onus is on him as the defendant to prove (supported by hard evidence) that there is a legitimate/innocent reason for those elevated levels

If Froome and his legal team manage to introduce reasonable doubt into the AAF proceedings that on its own won't be enough for him to escape a ban. He's not trying to undermine the prosecution case. He has to make a convincing case of his own. That is a much harder thing to do
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
brownbobby said:
Blanco said:
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
And you believe it's the same thing, do you? I don't. Doping itself is very wrong, but convincing everyone that you're champion of clean cycling, while you're probably the worst doper of them all, is much, much worse. That's the main reason for such hate.
So tell me, what is acceptable to you? What would you do in his position? Remember you're going to be asked about doping in almost every press conference you ever do. No comment isn't an option. So tell me, what do you do in his position?

In cycling, the people most often forced to defend themselves against doping accusations are the ones consistently winning the biggest races.

Why are you surprised and outraged that the man consistently winning the biggest race in cycling is the one who most often tries to convince people he's not doping?
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. They don't paint themselves as reformers of a corrupt sport, and then reveal themselves as the worst kind of moral crusaders - hypocrites.

Admittedly, this is largely the fault of Sky rather than Froome. But he could have toned it down or put a stop to it early on, if he didn't have to put up this charade. Just simply stating early on that he is clean and will refuse to answer more questions about it in the future, because it's damaging the sport having to talk about it all the time. But he (and Sky) chose not to, or couldn't do that - because being anti-doping is the one thing they seized upon to set them apart from the rest. They wanted to talk about doping all the time, because it was at the heart of their marketing policy. Now they have to reap what they sow.
A fair response which mostly i agree with. As my earlier post, the strategy in dealing with the inevitable doping questions they knew would come with success was to defend by attacking. Bringing up the topic of doping before anyone asked them about it, pre-empting questions by answering before they were even asked. This was a mistake, one which they've found impossible to backtrack from with any credibility.

I'm not sure anything they/Froome could have done since would have closed down the debate to anyone's satisfaction once they had opened that particular can of worms. They went through the motions of refusing to answer questions, banning certain journalists etc...this just added more fuel to the fire.

We all know the media/doping circus goes into overdrive for one month every July in France. If Dumoulin goes onto success during that circus as many think he will, it'll be interesting to see how he deals with it. My guess is he'll get a much easier ride than Froome, not becauuse he's any less suspicious, but just because he's generally 'likeable'...
 
Re: Re:

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.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
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.
The strength of negative sentiment towards Froome (& Wiggo) is much more down to Brailsfraud's years of BS than the Armstrong effect
 
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
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.
 
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY