Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
Spetsa - 2 members is small fry compared to the Lance era.
Michelle needs to up her budget.
:) At least during the LA era, there were enough truly informed, interested​ in debunking the crap being spewed. I won't repeat the words out of fear of moderator reprimand, but Brodeal comes to mind.
 
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.
No, think you are overpaid. You over value your contributions and under value others'.
 
gillan1969 said:
...and its difficult to measure those that didn't start sponsoring in the first place because of the PED issue
Yes, agree it's difficult to measure quantitavely. However, one can refer to comments from team managers and various organizing bodies over the years citing the doping issue in difficulty in landing sponsors. Too many examples to list, it's been happening regularly since Festina.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
matters can be discussed with disagreement without anyone clinging...that is what....er.....debate is
 
red_flanders said:
gillan1969 said:
...and its difficult to measure those that didn't start sponsoring in the first place because of the PED issue
Yes, agree it's difficult to measure quantitavely. However, one can refer to comments from team managers and various organizing bodies over the years citing the doping issue in difficulty in landing sponsors. Too many examples to list, it's been happening regularly since Festina.
Sod the facts, second- and third-hand anecdotal evidence, that's what matters. So long as it supports my belief system...
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.
No, think you are overpaid. You over value your contributions and under value others'.
If your only response is a personal attack, prepare yourself for more. I could care less if I were perma banned from this place.
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
As mentioned above, 4 years of German TV revenue were lost specifically because of doping scandals. That is specific, measurable, and damaging––to the original claim.

Your (apparent but unstated) claim that no damage has been done is demonstrably false. Of course one can never know what wages would have been without scandal, and one has to recognize that scandal has by and large diminished in the last few years. By design. For a very specific reason...revenue.

Shall we start a thread on this? It appears wildly off-topic.
 
If the Giro are worried about doping scaring away sponsors (aside: they aren't) they probably shouldn't have proclaimed the 2014 route as a tribute to Pantani. They'll probably celebrate the 20th anniversary of his Giro win this year too..
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
spetsa said:
fmk_RoI said:
The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)
So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.
No, think you are overpaid. You over value your contributions and under value others'.
If your only response is a personal attack, prepare yourself for more. I could care less if I were perma banned from this place.
I'm thinking fmk is having a bad day...or needs a pint
 
Re: Re:

spetsa said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
Parker said:
bambino said:
Pointless debate btw. because you will refuse (intentionally?) look at the matter from the organizer pow. I admit the situation is difficult for Froome as well, resolution to the case has to be seeked before these decision we talk about comes to table.
I can look at it perfectly well from the organizer's point of view. And from their legal point of view - not as a proxy. To exclude Froome they would need to have strong justification - and they just don't have that. Looking at it from their point of view, it will be unwise to get into a legal battle that they almost certainly won't win. Seeking to exclude him and failing will do more damage than him riding without obstruction.
I'm not as sure as you are about their legal stance. If they can proove there is a fair chance of ruined reputation, their decision to ban will stand on solid ground. And if no-one can guarantee (including Froome's layers) that the reputation will not be ruined, they have solid case. That is why Vegni is screaming for guarantee. And there is precedent for organizers right to decline participation as long as the written rules are adhered and the ban is not seen as punishment. Reputation of the sport and race is key here.
This can't be taken seriously when RCS invited Bardiani to the 2018 Giro, after their two AAF's before the 2017 Giro - This won't wash morally.
Which Bardiani riders that raced the 2018 Giro had ongoing doping investigations? Who is claiming Sky as a team won't be invited.
There is a big difference between a WT team who receives an automatic invitation, compared to a wildcard team which pitches for an invitation - The RCS is responsible for their own morality - It's up to you if you support this morality.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
As mentioned above, 4 years of German TV revenue were lost specifically because of doping scandals. That is specific, measurable, and damaging––to the original claim.
You don't appear to understand - or is it care? - about the role played by State Plan 14.25 in the Germany pull out.

As for your belief that my pointing out a deficiency in the evidence supporting one claim is a coded - or whatever - argument in favour of something entirely different ... dream on.
 
Re:

Parker said:
If the Giro are worried about doping scaring away sponsors (aside: they aren't) they probably shouldn't have proclaimed the 2014 route as a tribute to Pantani. They'll probably celebrate the 20th anniversary of his Giro win this year too..
Hush now child, LA fanboys like you are just trying to derail unintelligible debate.
 
Re:

53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
 
To be fair, it would never be an issue with Bardiani riders riding Giro anyway, because their AAFs have all been for non-specified substances, not theraputic ones, so the rider is suspended imediatly on the AAF anyway, not the decision.
Legally, Giro won't have a leg to stand on. The only way they would prevent Froome riding would be remove itself from under UCI sanction and operate anti-doping with Italian NADO I assume so they could apply the rules they want.
I think the case is nearly over anyway, sounds like Froome is very confident no rules have been broken from his latest interview with Moore and even Moore himself was shocked at the level of confidence from within Team Sky. Could all be a big bluff of course, but I think he will be cleared by then anyway.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Yaco, you are correct on one thing for sure. It is up to RCS to decide if Froome is allowed to race or not. Thanks for finally ending that debate for us.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
53*11 said:
i go away for a few hours and now we seem to be spiralling into a debate about the effects of doping scandals on team/the sports sponsorship! oh well
That is rather at the heart of the argument being made by some that Froome's intended Giro participation risks bringing disrepute upon the race. Before we throw away the rule book coming up with ways to stop this happening we really need to know whethere it can actually hapen. Is it possible, today, to tarnish the Giro's reputation?
surely the self proclaimed saviours of cycling would therefore be boycotting the Giro then on that basis...not...eh...taking the money ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY