Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re:

My pleasure

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....

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

My pleasure

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:

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

My pleasure

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!!

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.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.
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.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

My pleasure

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!!

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.

 

[MartinGT]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05wv9yh

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

My pleasure

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!!

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.

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

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

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.
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.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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.
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

 

[Bolder]

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.

 

[Poursuivant]

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?

 

[Blanco]

Re:

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.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

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?

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[poupou]

Simple answer: were are as clean as other teams!

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

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

 

[brownbobby]

Re:

Simple answer: were are as clean as other teams!

....and that would suffice for you would it? You'd be happy to close the debate and move on, no more questions?

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Simple answer: were are as clean as other teams!

The Vino option............

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

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

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

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'...

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Wiggo's Package]

Re: Re:

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

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.