Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1138 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
Froome was 'afforded' confidentiality by the system, however there was a leak. You can't legislate for that...

leakers by definition tend not afford anyone anything...and of course may have had an as yet unknown reason for leaking in the first place...you could also call them a whisltleblower ...perhaps, of course the way the AAF is being managed changed after the leak/whistleblow.....
 
MartinGT said:
I wonder if this had been kept quiet still, what the reaction would have been of a ban. (I still think they will wriggle out of something)

Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
If it had been kept quiet, nobody would have found out about it, ever. That's why it wasn't kept quiet.
 
How many adverse results have happened that we don't know about have been kept quiet? I'm guessing > 0 from the way Froome and Sky conducted themselves before the leak, and from UCI history. And common sense.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The leak happened. We're not going to ignore what we know now because some folks don't want it discussed.
 
MartinGT said:
Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
Any such feelings that people may have expressed seem to have been almost exclusively in reaction to those livid that he is not suspended at present. If this had not been made public then there would have been any madness about him riding.
 
Parker said:
MartinGT said:
Some people seem more livid that it's out than the situation that Froome / Sky find themselves in. Yes, trial by media etc, but I dont get the madness tbh.
Any such feelings that people may have expressed seem to have been almost exclusively in reaction to those livid that he is not suspended at present. If this had not been made public then there would have been any madness about him riding.
no...the 'madness' may then have been post-sanction about him riding when he knew that the reading was 2000 (not 1201 with a potential chance of physiological chance of explaining it away) and so its swings and roundabouts...at least with the leak there is a chance to have the debate when its not just academic. If we could only discuss this after the event then there would be no chance for any self/team suspension...

on balance probably better we know now (that's based on the 2000 reading, not the AAF per se)
 
macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.
How many of those alleged athletes not only publicly committed to riding the Giro, but accepted a big payout for their presence? When people break the rules of common decency, let alone common sense, all bets that they will be treated fairly in return are off.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
If you view everything through the filter of Froome has done nothing wrong then, yeah, you wouldn’t get that.

there are many possible motives for leaking, and some of them aren't righteous.
How about if the motive was to avoid Vegni’s being blind-sided at the last moment?

Parker said:
If this had not been made public then there would have [not] been any madness about him riding.
Unless he had suddenly been pulled out of the Giro. The uproar then would have made whatever’s happening now look like child’s play.

A prime characteristic of dopers is denial. A classic example of this was provided by LA, when he famously said it isn’t cheating if everyone else is doing it. Froome has not yet been proven to be a doper, but he sure has the denial part down. Why did he commit to the Giro while sitting on an AAF, which he couldn’t be possibly certain wouldn’t make him ineligible to ride then, when he could have just as easily postponed the announcement? Denial. Why did he ride the Ruta, not being able to guarantee that if he won a stage or the race and was later suspended, the standings would not have to be rearranged later? Denial. Why has he expressed confidence he will be exonerated, even as it appears after nearly six months that he has no explanation for the positive? Denial.

Throughout this process, Froome hasn’t shown the slightest regard for cycling, for the effects his actions may have on others. He had a right to have the AAF not announced publicly, but it does not follow that he has a right to act as though it’s a foregone conclusion that he will be cleared.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
macbindle said:
Well, I suppose it might be that people are annoyed because (almost) every other athlete with an adverse analytical finding has been afforded confidentiality, as per regulations. But Froome hasn't.
How many of those alleged athletes not only publicly committed to riding the Giro, but accepted a big payout for their presence? When people break the rules of common decency, let alone common sense, all bets that they will be treated fairly in return are off.

If you view everything through the filter of utter visceral hate of Froome then, yeah, you wouldn't get that.
If you view everything through the filter of Froome has done nothing wrong then, yeah, you wouldn’t get that.

there are many possible motives for leaking, and some of them aren't righteous.
How about if the motive was to avoid Vegni’s being blind-sided at the last moment?

Parker said:
If this had not been made public then there would have [not] been any madness about him riding.
Unless he had suddenly been pulled out of the Giro. The uproar then would have made whatever’s happening now look like child’s play.

A prime characteristic of dopers is denial. A classic example of this was provided by LA, when he famously said it isn’t cheating if everyone else is doing it. Froome has not yet been proven to be a doper, but he sure has the denial part down. Why did he commit to the Giro while sitting on an AAF, which he couldn’t be possibly certain wouldn’t make him ineligible to ride then, when he could have just as easily postponed the announcement? Denial. Why did he ride the Ruta, not being able to guarantee that if he won a stage or the race and was later suspended, the standings would not have to be rearranged later? Denial. Why has he expressed confidence he will be exonerated, even as it appears after nearly six months that he has no explanation for the positive? Denial.

Throughout this process, Froome hasn’t shown the slightest regard for cycling, for the effects his actions may have on others. He had a right to have the AAF not announced publicly, but it does not follow that he has a right to act as though it’s a foregone conclusion that he will cleared.
(Take I): Took a glance at Strade Bianche today ... well ... one eye open, the other shut. And ... only intermittently ... furtively. Turned it off (quickly ... wife home from the shops) before it was over. Flipped over to 'Debbie Does Dallas.' (wife forgot the pork pies). Feckin Classic. Now ... I don't have to tell you lads what it's ALL about, do I?

(Take II): ........
 
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
 
Re:

macbindle said:
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
If I were a cyclist, and I had seven months before I had to commit to riding a GT that I couldn't be sure I would be eligible to ride, would I immediately announce my commitment, rather than wait and see what the decision on my status was--which I had the power to ensure was made within six months?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules That Say This is the Only Possible Way of Keeping Your Options Open that somebody on an internet forum just made up rather than the actual...errr...you know...other possibilities available to someone with common sense.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
macbindle said:
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
If I were a cyclist, and I had seven months before I had to commit to riding a GT that I couldn't be sure I would be eligible to ride, would I immediately announce my commitment, rather than wait and see what the decision on my status was--which I had the power to ensure was made within six months?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules That Say This is the Only Possible Way of Keeping Your Options Open that somebody on an internet forum just made up rather than the actual...errr...you know...other possibilities available to someone with common sense.
Golden Score, lads!

Hajime!!!
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
macbindle said:
If I was a cyclist with maybe just one or two years of career left, and an AAF that may be beatable would I not enter any races at all that year, and in so doing effectively end my position in cycling?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules of Common Decency that somebody on an internet forum just made up, rather than the actual....errr...you know....rules. :rolleyes:
If I were a cyclist, and I had seven months before I had to commit to riding a GT that I couldn't be sure I would be eligible to ride, would I immediately announce my commitment, rather than wait and see what the decision on my status was--which I had the power to ensure was made within six months?

Yeah, I would, because I would be following the Rules That Say This is the Only Possible Way of Keeping Your Options Open that somebody on an internet forum just made up rather than the actual...errr...you know...other possibilities available to someone with common sense.
The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethical perfection.
 
brownbobby The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethic ;) al perfection.
Buona domenica bobby.
:eek: Dear Froome appologist: I call your bluff
Jesus was quite famous, too,
in his time.
He did extreme fasting too - probably without PEDs.
There was even a camel-train of PrinceBots at his disposal and a star in the Sky.
He claimed to be a force for the good
not just so one who did no wrong
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethic ;) al perfection.
Buona domenica bobby.
:eek: Dear Froome appologist: I call your bluff
Jesus was quite famous, too,
in his time.
He did extreme fasting too - probably without PEDs.
There was even a camel-train of PrinceBots at his disposal and a star in the Sky.
He claimed to be a force for the good
not just so one who did no wrong
And a good day to you too TOS :)

Very good :lol:

I wonder, if he really existed, how would Jesus himself have stood up to the scrutiny and cross examination of a forum such as this should such a thing have existed during his lifetime....
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethic ;) al perfection.
Buona domenica bobby.
:eek: Dear Froome appologist: I call your bluff
Jesus was quite famous, too,
in his time.
He did extreme fasting too - probably without PEDs.
There was even a camel-train of PrinceBots at his disposal and a star in the Sky.
He claimed to be a force for the good
not just so one who did no wrong
And a good day to you too TOS :)

Very good :lol:

I wonder, if he really existed, how would Jesus himself have stood up to the scrutiny and cross examination of a forum such as this should such a thing have existed during his lifetime....
Jesus' mum would have been worse than Michelle:

"He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy"

:D
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethic ;) al perfection.
Buona domenica bobby.
:eek: Dear Froome appologist: I call your bluff
Jesus was quite famous, too,
in his time.
He did extreme fasting too - probably without PEDs.
There was even a camel-train of PrinceBots at his disposal and a star in the Sky.
He claimed to be a force for the good
not just so one who did no wrong
And a good day to you too TOS :)

Very good :lol:

I wonder, if he really existed, how would Jesus himself have stood up to the scrutiny and cross examination of a forum such as this should such a thing have existed during his lifetime....
Jesus' mum would have been worse than Michelle:

"He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy"

:D
I think his Mum would have lost all credibility years earlier with the whole immaculate conception yarn....
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Wiggo's Package said:
brownbobby said:
TourOfSardinia said:
brownbobby The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethic ;) al perfection.
Buona domenica bobby.
Dear Froome appologist: I call your bluff
Jesus was quite famous, too,
in his time.
He did extreme fasting too - probably without PEDs.
There was even a camel-train of PrinceBots at his disposal and a star in the Sky.
He claimed to be a force for the good
not just so one who did no wrong
And a good day to you too TOS :)

Very good :lol:

I wonder, if he really existed, how would Jesus himself have stood up to the scrutiny and cross examination of a forum such as this should such a thing have existed during his lifetime....
Jesus' mum would have been worse than Michelle:

"He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy"

:D
I think his Mum would have lost all credibility years earlier with the whole immaculate conception yarn....
:lol:

As for his dad - just don't go there...
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethical perfection.
At this point, I don’t know if you, Mac and a few others are just pretending not to understand, because you’re constitutionally incapable of criticizing Froome, or really are as incapable of following a simple point as all of you appear to be. There is nothing—repeat, NOTHING—requiring ethical perfection in WAITING before making a commitment that you aren’t sure you can keep. Yes, it’s the ethical thing to do, but in this case there is none of that oh so inconvenient conflict with furthering one’s career. Let me keep this as simple as possible: THERE IS NO RULE REQUIRING RIDERS TO COMMIT TO A GRAND TOUR SEVEN MONTHS IN ADVANCE.

It does not take someone with ethical courage to make this decision. It does not require putting one’s entire racing season at risk. It does not entail closing out any options whatsoever. All it requires is someone with a functioning brain.

I could say more if there had been an ethical conflict involved, but frankly, after hearing Mac describe basic honesty as a made up rule on the internet—i.e., fake ethics—and you, bb, equating it with sainthood, I realize it would be a waste of time. But if either of you ever needs a job, there are lots of openings at the White House now, and you would fit in perfectly. This is exactly the attitude they’re looking for.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
Let me keep this as simple as possible: THERE IS NO RULE REQUIRING RIDERS TO COMMIT TO A GRAND TOUR SEVEN MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
Almost all of the big GC riders do though.
They don't make these decisions at the last minute. They have to plan their training and race programme before the season starts.
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
The great thing about not being Chris Froome, indeed not having any kind of celebrity or fame whatsoever, is that you can sit in judgement with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the virtual morals of Jesus Christ himself, proclaiming what he should have done....no what you would have done in his position.....knowing with absolute certainty that you will never be in his position and therefore never taken to task if you fail to live up to your virtual moral and ethical perfection.
At this point, I don’t know if you, Mac and a few others are just pretending not to understand, because you’re constitutionally incapable of criticizing Froome, or really are as incapable of following a simple point as all of you appear to be. There is nothing—repeat, NOTHING—requiring ethical perfection in WAITING before making a commitment that you aren’t sure you can keep. Yes, it’s the ethical thing to do, but in this case there is none of that oh so inconvenient conflict with furthering one’s career. Let me keep this as simple as possible: THERE IS NO RULE REQUIRING RIDERS TO COMMIT TO A GRAND TOUR SEVEN MONTHS IN ADVANCE.

It does not take someone with ethical courage to make this decision. It does not require putting one’s entire racing season at risk. It does not entail closing out any options whatsoever. All it requires is someone with a functioning brain.

I could say more if there had been an ethical conflict involved, but frankly, after hearing Mac describe basic honesty as a made up rule on the internet—i.e., fake ethics—and you, bb, equating it with sainthood, I realize it would be a waste of time. But if either of you ever needs a job, there are lots of openings at the White House now, and you would fit in perfectly. This is exactly the attitude they’re looking for.
So you think the Giro organisers would have still paid him the big bucks if he wasn't commited to months and months of pre event publicity. You think he could have just rolled up at the start line, virtually unannounced and got the same deal?

THERE IS NOTHING. REPEAT NOTHING TO STOP A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN MAKING A DECISION TO COMMIT TO A GRAND TOUR EARLY ENOUGH TO MAXIMIZE THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION IN SAID TOUR. WHY SHOOULD AN AAF STOP AN ATHLETES EARNING POTENTIAL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CASE HAS BEEN DETERMINED.

Just because 'we' don't agree with your oh so simple point, don't make the mistake of presuming it's because our barely functioning brains are incapable of understanding it.

Maybe, just maybe, our brains have decided to have a mind of their own....
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
So you think the Giro organisers would have still paid him the big bucks if he wasn't commited to months and months of pre event publicity. You think he could have just rolled up at the start line, virtually unannounced and got the same deal?
Perhaps you have a link with a graph showing the decline in the money offered to Froome over time? So, e.g., if he had waited till January, when he still had time to plan his season, he would have been offered only half as much? If he had waited till the end of March, when a decision could have been reached (and may very well still be reached), he would have been offered only 25%? This is very interesting, I look forward to seeing this.

While you're at it, maybe you can also find an analysis of how this hypothetical loss of money would affect Froome's life? Would he have to move to a smaller home? Cut back on his plans for his kids' education? Eliminate some vacations? Since, according to you, I can't possibly understand what it's like to be Froome, I guess I need help in understanding how horrific this (alleged) loss of income would be.

THERE IS NOTHING. REPEAT NOTHING TO STOP A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN MAKING A DECISION TO COMMIT TO A GRAND TOUR EARLY ENOUGH TO MAXIMIZE THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION IN SAID TOUR. WHY SHOULD AN AAF STOP AN ATHLETES EARNING POTENTIAL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CASE HAS BEEN DETERMINED.
Translation: Not only does money trump all other possible considerations, but even the possibility of money wins out over any other factor. So let’s break this down, too. If there’s a 50% chance he could lose the payoff, he should commit even with the AAF? What about a 25% chance? What about a 1% chance?

Seriously, how much is a man’s word worth? A dollar? A penny? Anything at all?
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
So you think the Giro organisers would have still paid him the big bucks if he wasn't commited to months and months of pre event publicity. You think he could have just rolled up at the start line, virtually unannounced and got the same deal?
Perhaps you have a link with a graph showing the decline in the money offered to Froome over time? So, e.g., if he had waited till January, when he still had time to plan his season, he would have been offered only half as much? If he had waited till the end of March, when a decision could have been reached (and may very well still be reached), he would have been offered only 25%? This is very interesting, I look forward to seeing this.

While you're at it, maybe you can also find an analysis of how this hypothetical loss of money would affect Froome's life? Would he have to move to a smaller home? Cut back on his plans for his kids' education? Eliminate some vacations? Since, according to you, I can't possibly understand what it's like to be Froome, I guess I need help in understanding how horrific this loss of income would be.
Wow, MI. After weeks of great science ... you play the book of Matthew card. Extrohdinahry. Hmmmmm.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY