Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1102 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Yawn.

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

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

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

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

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

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

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

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

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

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

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

meat puppet said:
Yawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).

Any theories why it took him the best part of two years to get another job?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Parker said:
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.
It seems that after the point at which UCI offered a cyclist "Acceptance of Responsibility" but the cyclist rejected it, then there will be a record of the fact the case was referred to Anti-Doping Tribunal

Article 7 Confidentiality
1. The Tribunal shall ensure that any information disclosed to it in connection with the
proceedings and not otherwise in the public domain shall be kept confidential and shall
be used only in connection with the disciplinary proceedings at hand.
2. Likewise, all Parties as well as the Secretariat, witnesses, experts, interpreters or any
other individual involved in proceedings shall keep confidential any information
disclosed in connection with the proceedings.
3. Para. 2 above does not restrict UCI’s right to make public announcements regarding
the existence
and status of any pending matter.

http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Organisation/16/95/42/Anti-DopingTribunalProceduralRules_English.pdf

So it seems there aren't secret Anti-Doping Tribunal cases, the UCI definitely doesn't have to conceal any case at that point. And I don't see what their motive would be in: both sending the case to Anti-Doping Tribunal, and at the same time, pretending the case no longer exists

If the cyclist is acquitted, then what the case was about, and why they got off, can remain secret at the request of the athlete... but there is still a record that there was a referral to Anti-Doping Tribunal. That's my impression based on the documents
Just because they can make public announcements it doesn't necessarily follow that they will. The UCI appear to have a policy of keeping anti-doping cases low profile - putting out a spreadsheet as a notification of sanctions. They're unlikely to release information they don't have to.
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
Hey Parker

this is the wrong trhead to rubbish Kimmage's golden halo
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Parker said:
Wiggo's Package said:
And why did the Sunday Times fire Kimmage? Any theories on that? ;)
Same reason he got fired from writing Brian O'Driscoll's book. He was incapable of meeting a deadline and much of what he was writing was crap. (And the ST laid off 200 other workers at the same time).
Kimmage wasn't fired by BOD he walked away from writing BOD's book over a point of principle (BOD was going to give an interview to a rival newspaper). And Kimmage later said the stuff left out of his version of the book was more interesting than what was finally published
Yeah sure he did.

Real story: He took a year and a half to write 60 pages which O'Driscoll's wife (a novelist herself) read and declared to be rubbish which lead to a parting of ways.

Apparently, the joke among journalists was that he was fired because O'Driscoll read it and wondered why he wasn't in it.
You're coming out with some zingers today :rolleyes:

You'll be claiming next that no one had any doubts about Wiggo when he won the TdF

Ohh...
 
Re: Re:

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

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

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

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

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

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph.
I would be very surprised at that - why would the Barclay brothers do anything to help Murdoch (and The Times)?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

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

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

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

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

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

Btw that article I took that quote from was written by a journalist who was sacked by the Telegraph for digging into what was really going on at Team Sky. The feedback loop (back in the days when Brailsfraud had leverage) was that Brailsfraud called the Murdochs who called in a favour with the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph.
I would be very surprised at that - why would the Barclay brothers do anything to help Murdoch (and The Times)?
Honour among thieves ;)
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
https://www.eurosport.co.uk/cycling/uci-could-impose-provisional-ban-on-chris-froome-as-anti-doping-case-continues_sto6509909/story.shtml

'The UCI has... clarified [its] position with regard to article 7.9.3 in its anti-doping rules. This states that the Switzerland-based body can impose a provisional ban when there has been an adverse analytical finding, it just has never done it before for a salbutamol case or any other specified substance, for that matter. Press Association Sport understands that the UCI is actually continuing to evaluate its position and may trigger article 7.9.3 if the case is not moving along fast enough.'
 
Re:

webvan said:
So Lappartient hadn't been briefed about that rule ? Odd...I wonder where they clarified that actually ?
Since now he has an official new director general, Ms Amina Lanaya, former head of legal services, she maybe reminded him of this article:

7.9.3 Provisional Suspension based on an Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances, Contaminated Products, or for other Anti-Doping Rule Violations

For any potential anti-doping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules asserted after a review under Article 7 and not covered by Article 7.9.1 or 7.9.2, the UCI may impose a Provisional Suspension prior to analysis of the Rider’s B Sample (where applicable) or prior to a final hearing as described in Article 8.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY