Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1139 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
To your first request, nope I got none of that, just a bit of speculation (you know about speculation, I know that) on my part that the Giro organisers and sponsors would be wanting to use Froome's participation for some pre event promo stuff in return for the appearance fee on offer.

To your second request. Again nope, but I'll ask something in return....can you provide me some research that shows financial decisions are commonly taken on 'need' and 'fear of loss' rather than 'desire and aspirations of more wealth. Unconflicted examples of already wealthy people saying 'I got enough cash to get by now, don't need no more ? You might find a few, but they'll be in a minority

Of course you could call this greed...but we'd then be shifting to a whole new discussion on the human psyche
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
can you provide me some research that shows financial decisions are commonly taken on 'need' and 'fear of loss' rather than 'desire and aspirations of more wealth.
You obviously haven't been following advances in decision theory:

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains: it is better to not lose $5 than to find $5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
 
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
can you provide me some research that shows financial decisions are commonly taken on 'need' and 'fear of loss' rather than 'desire and aspirations of more wealth.
You obviously haven't been following advances in decision theory:

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains: it is better to not lose $5 than to find $5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
I'll be kind and call that link 'tenuous'

Risk aversion is a completely different sub topic to opportunism.

Equivalency is the key word here.....so what, financially, did Froome have to lose by signing up to the Giro? Keeping the theory of equivalency in mind, we're reportedly looking for circa 2 million dollars worth of risk to give that study any relevance here.

Edit: Oh, and editing your post after I've already responded to it....no fair :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
can you provide me some research that shows financial decisions are commonly taken on 'need' and 'fear of loss' rather than 'desire and aspirations of more wealth.
You obviously haven't been following advances in decision theory:

In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains: it is better to not lose $5 than to find $5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
I'll be kind and call that link 'tenuous'

Risk aversion is a completely different sub topic to opportunism.

Equivalency is the key word here.....so what, financially, did Froome have to lose by signing up to the Giro? Keeping the theory of equivalency in mind, we're reportedly looking for circa 2 million dollars worth of risk to give that study any relevance here.

Edit: Oh, and editing your post after I've already responded to it....no fair :D

who cares...the interesting bit is that he did

throw all your's/MI's discussion the mix and you would have to presume that the decision to start the Giro was made by Froome both knowing that he scored 2000 and that the Giro would want him/could have him (which supposes he believes he would walk). Things changed on the Cookson's loss at UCI and the leak.

Froome's personal ethics are small beer compared to a 2000 reading which it appears Froome was given to believe was not a problem....
 
brownbobby said:
To your first request, nope I got none of that, just a bit of speculation (you know about speculation, I know that) on my part that the Giro organisers and sponsors would be wanting to use Froome's participation for some pre event promo stuff in return for the appearance fee on offer.
The difference is that when I speculate, I make that very clear. You’ve built your entire defense of Froome around speculation that if he hadn’t committed to the Giro in October, he would have lost a lot of money. Not until I called you on that did you admit you have no idea at all whether that’s the case.

Of course you could call this greed...but we'd then be shifting to a whole new discussion on the human psyche
But greed is what this is all about, and again, it illustrates the double standard some here are applying. Froome gets a pass when he’s not fully honest about his Giro situation, because he has a right to be greedy, but if Froome had out of the blue been suspended right before or during the Giro, probably resulting in significant financial damage, Vegni has no right to be greedy about that.

Why? Probably in large part because people tend to be more sympathetic towards elite athletes than to some bureaucrat. But while you’re certainly allowed to play favorites with your sympathies, the rules about what is allowed when seeking to pursue one’s greed shouldn’t selectively apply to one and not the other.

Risk aversion is a completely different sub topic to opportunism.
No, it really isn’t. Opportunism vs. risk is exactly what those studies are about.

Equivalency is the key word here.....so what, financially, did Froome have to lose by signing up to the Giro?
He had nothing to lose (i.e., no money to lose, which clearly is all he cares about) by committing to it. Vegni was the one at risk as soon as Froome committed. In fact, this entire discussion about risk is a red herring, it really isn’t relevant to Froome’s situation.

Keeping the theory of equivalency in mind, we're reportedly looking for circa 2 million dollars worth of risk to give that study any relevance here.
It’s not “that study”, there is a large body of evidence in the field. And not all of it is from controlled studies involving small amounts of money. Remember all the folks who bet on the Leicester Foxes, then cashed out before the season was over? Risk aversion is very real, and applies to large sums of money. Just not to Froome in this situation.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
brownbobby said:
To your first request, nope I got none of that, just a bit of speculation (you know about speculation, I know that) on my part that the Giro organisers and sponsors would be wanting to use Froome's participation for some pre event promo stuff in return for the appearance fee on offer.
The difference is that when I speculate, I make that very clear. You’ve built your entire defense of Froome around speculation that if he hadn’t committed to the Giro in October, he would have lost a lot of money. Not until I called you on that did you admit you have no idea at all whether that’s the case.

Of course you could call this greed...but we'd then be shifting to a whole new discussion on the human psyche
But greed is what this is all about, and again, it illustrates the double standard some here are applying. Froome gets a pass when he’s not fully honest about his Giro situation, because he has a right to be greedy, but if Froome had out of the blue been suspended right before or during the Giro, probably resulting in significant financial damage, Vegni has no right to be greedy about that.

Why? Probably in large part because people tend to be more sympathetic towards elite athletes than to some bureaucrat. But while you’re certainly allowed to play favorites with your sympathies, the rules about what is allowed when seeking to pursue one’s greed shouldn’t selectively apply to one and not the other.

Risk aversion is a completely different sub topic to opportunism.
No, it really isn’t. Opportunism vs. risk is exactly what those studies are about.

Equivalency is the key word here.....so what, financially, did Froome have to lose by signing up to the Giro?
He had nothing to lose (i.e., no money to lose, which clearly is all he cares about) by committing to it. Vegni was the one at risk as soon as Froome committed. In fact, this entire discussion about risk is a red herring, it really isn’t relevant to Froome’s situation.

Keeping the theory of equivalency in mind, we're reportedly looking for circa 2 million dollars worth of risk to give that study any relevance here.
It’s not “that study”, there is a large body of evidence in the field. And not all of it is from controlled studies involving small amounts of money. Remember all the folks who bet on the Leicester Foxes, then cashed out before the season was over? Risk aversion is very real, and applies to large sums of money. Just not to Froome in this situation.
Leicester Foxes???

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Feb 5, 2018
270
0
0
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.
thats a third degree burn right there! and i agree with every word of it
 
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I think today's revelations will not work in Froome's favor
They shouldn't as the issues are separate although related but cycling fans perceptions of Sky obviously will. Will be a miracle if Brailsford survives you would think. This is not new territory for cycling but it will be interesting to see how Sky is received by the fans in the Giro and the Tour even if Froome may not be there. Expect journalists to do even more digging for Sky related information and ask a lot of questions that Sky and their riders won't want to address. The media frenzy will only increase especially if Froome is banned and even more so if he isn't !
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
LaFlorecita said:
I think today's revelations will not work in Froome's favor
They shouldn't as the issues are separate although related but cycling fans perceptions of Sky obviously will. Will be a miracle if Brailsford survives you would think. This is not new territory for cycling but it will be interesting to see how Sky is received by the fans in the Giro and the Tour even if Froome may not be there. Expect journalists to do even more digging for Sky related information and ask a lot of questions that Sky and their riders won't want to address. The media frenzy will only increase especially if Froome is banned and even more so if he isn't !
I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
movingtarget said:
LaFlorecita said:
I think today's revelations will not work in Froome's favor
They shouldn't as the issues are separate although related but cycling fans perceptions of Sky obviously will. Will be a miracle if Brailsford survives you would think. This is not new territory for cycling but it will be interesting to see how Sky is received by the fans in the Giro and the Tour even if Froome may not be there. Expect journalists to do even more digging for Sky related information and ask a lot of questions that Sky and their riders won't want to address. The media frenzy will only increase especially if Froome is banned and even more so if he isn't !
I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
:D
I always get the feeling looking at Froome that he knows it will come crashing down one day, wouldn't be surprised if he came clean himself sometime in the future, before the whole house of cards falls. He seems more mentally prepared for it and I get the impression he doesn't seem to get too invested in his legacy and reputation, unlike Wiggins and Brailsford. It's going to hit those two much harder - with their huge egos and desire for greatness.
 
Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
Why would a team sign a rider and take on their contract if that rider's just been banned for 2 years?
 
Re: Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
yaco said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
Why would a team sign a rider and take on their contract if that rider's just been banned for 2 years?
Because they want to break the rules in the most visible way they can imagine...
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
yaco said:
ClassicomanoLuigi said:
Froome signed with Team Sky for three years last summer

https://www.teamsky.com/article/chris-froome-confirms-new-contract-with-team-sky

I had been told his contract would be up at the end of 2018 but nothing could be further from the truth. Very basic fact that I was misinformed and wrong about. So, it's not an option for Team Sky to just not renew a Froome contract... to sack him would require dissolving the existing contract based on the "zero tolerance" clause, or whatever method.
Presumably if the whole team folds, Froome doesn't get paid for not riding for a defunct team
It's not unusual for riders to switch teams while under contract - My guess is Froome will change teams if he receives a sanction for Salbutamol.
Why would a team sign a rider and take on their contract if that rider's just been banned for 2 years?
Because they want to break the rules in the most visible way they can imagine...
If that happens, hopefully Astana will still be going and Froome can go and work with Vino ;) and really go full genius :lol:
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Secret Pro on the Dawg:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/secret-pro-froome-stay-home/

"Let’s talk about what the pro peloton thinks. I’m talking in generalities here, as I can’t speak for everyone. But it’s something we talk about. So here’s what I’m hearing. Froome should stay home. It’s as simple as that. He can do his epic 200+km days, post them to Strava, but pinning on a race number is not okay. He should not have lined up at Ruta del Sol. He should not line up at Tirreno this week. That’s what most of us think.

Obviously, he has the right to jump in with us. But every time he does the race becomes secondary. All the headlines are about him and his case and how F’ed up our sport is. Why do you think so many journalists suddenly decided to cover a small race in Spain? They were everywhere, like buzzards to a carcass. Here’s what it comes down to for me, and a lot of others think the same: If Froome really cared about the sport as much as some fans care about him, he would leave that number off until he resolves the issue. It is a tough spot to be in for him, I get it. But Froomey likes the training more than most. So just do that, buddy. Perhaps you say, “but he hasn’t been found guilty, so why can’t he race!?” As I said: For the sport. The sport we all love."
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
Re:

Wiggo's Package said:
Secret Pro on the Dawg:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/secret-pro-froome-stay-home/

"Let’s talk about what the pro peloton thinks. I’m talking in generalities here, as I can’t speak for everyone. But it’s something we talk about. So here’s what I’m hearing. Froome should stay home. It’s as simple as that. He can do his epic 200+km days, post them to Strava, but pinning on a race number is not okay. He should not have lined up at Ruta del Sol. He should not line up at Tirreno this week. That’s what most of us think.

Obviously, he has the right to jump in with us. But every time he does the race becomes secondary. All the headlines are about him and his case and how F’ed up our sport is. Why do you think so many journalists suddenly decided to cover a small race in Spain? They were everywhere, like buzzards to a carcass. Here’s what it comes down to for me, and a lot of others think the same: If Froome really cared about the sport as much as some fans care about him, he would leave that number off until he resolves the issue. It is a tough spot to be in for him, I get it. But Froomey likes the training more than most. So just do that, buddy. Perhaps you say, “but he hasn’t been found guilty, so why can’t he race!?” As I said: For the sport. The sport we all love."
What love for the sport?

Every champion I've ever had the blessing to watch has been all over the sport and just for the pure love of it. Not just notching up a few GT's. Blech. I'm talking about racing the classics full-tilt even if they aren't suited for them. Because they are the classics and they deserve every rider's full respect. That means getting out on the track and giving it a go. That means racing a huge number of days because it means they're out racing.

I've never seen a champion. A true champion. Calculating and racing only a few well chosen races each year because of what it might benefit them. Why? Because they effing love this sport and all the wild beauty it offers the true athlete. Go back a few years and you can start filling in all kinds of names of cyclists who actually love the sport.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Secret Pro on the Dawg:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/secret-pro-froome-stay-home/

"Let’s talk about what the pro peloton thinks. I’m talking in generalities here, as I can’t speak for everyone. But it’s something we talk about. So here’s what I’m hearing. Froome should stay home. It’s as simple as that. He can do his epic 200+km days, post them to Strava, but pinning on a race number is not okay. He should not have lined up at Ruta del Sol. He should not line up at Tirreno this week. That’s what most of us think.

Obviously, he has the right to jump in with us. But every time he does the race becomes secondary. All the headlines are about him and his case and how F’ed up our sport is. Why do you think so many journalists suddenly decided to cover a small race in Spain? They were everywhere, like buzzards to a carcass. Here’s what it comes down to for me, and a lot of others think the same: If Froome really cared about the sport as much as some fans care about him, he would leave that number off until he resolves the issue. It is a tough spot to be in for him, I get it. But Froomey likes the training more than most. So just do that, buddy. Perhaps you say, “but he hasn’t been found guilty, so why can’t he race!?” As I said: For the sport. The sport we all love."
What love for the sport?

Every champion I've ever had the blessing to watch has been all over the sport and just for the pure love of it. Not just notching up a few GT's. Blech. I'm talking about racing the classics full-tilt even if they aren't suited for them. Because they are the classics and they deserve every rider's full respect. That means getting out on the track and giving it a go. That means racing a huge number of days because it means they're out racing.

I've never seen a champion. A true champion. Calculating and racing only a few well chosen races each year because of what it might benefit them. Why? Because they effing love this sport and all the wild beauty it offers the true athlete. Go back a few years and you can start filling in all kinds of names of cyclists who actually love the sport.

John Swanson
doping aside...I'd like to think that Strade Bianchi this year proved what a great sport cycling is...a far cry from the froome and wiggo bore-fest
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
3
0
Froome will burn in hell anyway.

If hell exists that is.

His career looks over to me.

Rules need to change as well, perhaps jail time will reduce the doping problem in sport. If you commit fraud for millions of dollars you get jail time as well. Why is doping in professional sports any different?

One thing is for sure: Froome will no longer be able to take the risks he used to take. Everyone is looking with a magnifying glass at Team Sky. I'm curious how Team Sky will do in T-A, P-N and MSR. Froome will be the donkey he used to be again.

I find it hilarious I was banned a while ago for suggesting Nibali will get his second Vuelta win soon (before news of Froome's positive test broke out). I don't know why, but I was fairly confident he would get busted after his Vuelta performance.
 
Pressure on Froome continues to mount:
Tour director Christian Prudhomme expressed dismay that Froome is competing while his case is adjudicated, and pressed UCI officials to resolve the case immediately.

“This is crazy,” Prudhomme told a French TV channel. “What we want is an answer. Not just for the Tour de France, but all organizers. That there is a [cyclist] who is at the start line who might later be told he shouldn’t be there. It’s completely farcical. We need an answer.”
Assuming the Tribunal judge has been appointed, I hope s/he doesn’t try to rush proceedings. There should be time before the start of the Giro to reach a decision, the decision will with almost 100% certainty come before the start of the Tour. It's unfortunate that a few smaller races before the Giro might be affected, but that's not a rationale for saying that the case needs to be resolved immediately. The process needs to play out at exactly the same pace as would occur if Froome were currently suspended. If some meeting can be held sooner rather than later, if documents can be furnished this week rather than next week, fine, but no short cuts. If there was evidence that the decision was rushed--that a high official pressured the judge into reaching a decision ahead of the normally expected time--Froome could use that as a technical basis for overturning any ban. Prudhomme ought to know this.

Also, Prudhomme seems to be forgetting that regardless of what the Tribunal's decision is, and when it's announced, it will almost certainly be appealed by the losing side. If Froome is cleared before the Giro, his results in that race still won't be certain. If Froome is banned, it's possible that it will be back-dated (but see below) and might be short enough to allow him to ride at least the Tour, and that too would not be final.

One legal expert told VeloNews that if Froome were to be banned, any results between the Vuelta and a possible ruling would likely stand. In other words, if Froome won the Giro d’Italia in May and was banned in June, the Giro victory would not be erased. That’s not a guarantee, the legal source said, but very likely since Salbutamol is a “specified” product and Froome has not been provisionally banned.
Still don’t see that from a reading of the Code. Yes, he could be banned just from the date of the decision on, but the rules, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t provisionally suspended, clearly do allow for the ban to begin with last year’s Vuelta.

http://www.velonews.com/2018/03/news/tour-de-france-boss-prudhomme-demands-answers-in-froomes-doping-probe_458713#CmQme8k1Oc7VoQvJ.99
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Secret Pro on the Dawg:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/03/secret-pro-froome-stay-home/

"Let’s talk about what the pro peloton thinks. I’m talking in generalities here, as I can’t speak for everyone. But it’s something we talk about. So here’s what I’m hearing. Froome should stay home. It’s as simple as that. He can do his epic 200+km days, post them to Strava, but pinning on a race number is not okay. He should not have lined up at Ruta del Sol. He should not line up at Tirreno this week. That’s what most of us think.

Obviously, he has the right to jump in with us. But every time he does the race becomes secondary. All the headlines are about him and his case and how F’ed up our sport is. Why do you think so many journalists suddenly decided to cover a small race in Spain? They were everywhere, like buzzards to a carcass. Here’s what it comes down to for me, and a lot of others think the same: If Froome really cared about the sport as much as some fans care about him, he would leave that number off until he resolves the issue. It is a tough spot to be in for him, I get it. But Froomey likes the training more than most. So just do that, buddy. Perhaps you say, “but he hasn’t been found guilty, so why can’t he race!?” As I said: For the sport. The sport we all love."
What love for the sport?

Every champion I've ever had the blessing to watch has been all over the sport and just for the pure love of it. Not just notching up a few GT's. Blech. I'm talking about racing the classics full-tilt even if they aren't suited for them. Because they are the classics and they deserve every rider's full respect. That means getting out on the track and giving it a go. That means racing a huge number of days because it means they're out racing.

I've never seen a champion. A true champion. Calculating and racing only a few well chosen races each year because of what it might benefit them. Why? Because they effing love this sport and all the wild beauty it offers the true athlete. Go back a few years and you can start filling in all kinds of names of cyclists who actually love the sport.

John Swanson
John ... it appears that you are projecting your own (very romantic) perception of bicycle racing and pro racing champions ... as a point of argument by which to disparage those pro cyclists who don't live up to your ideal. We have no effective way of knowing/establishing whether a Copi was a better all round cycling guy than a Wiggo. Folklore has a place ...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY