Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1150 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Oh, I am so looking forward to the cumuppance with some posters here. With the amount of condescending comments, that will be the best dish served cold.
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
GraftPunk said:
Oh, I am so looking forward to the cumuppance with some posters here. With the amount of condescending comments, that will be the best dish served cold.
Genuine question...which 'side' do you believe is guilty of condescension :confused:
That's the best part, it's like "share the road", every side comes away from it feeling vindicated
 
Re:

veganrob said:
So some people think it is just great that MC stands out front defending her man and even puts words in his mouth because he appears so naive. But she shoud be not open to any criticism fo that? Sorry, can't have it both ways. She is fair game.
Like several other cycling wives, MC plays an active role in her husband's career. Despite the misogyny inherent in the sport, she is not the first. Anquetil's wife was heavily involved in his career. Ditto Coppi's second wife: there's a great story of her hurling insults from the team car at Magni one time. These sort of actions, of course they make discussion of the person fair. No one - no one - denies that.

But. Let's try and be reasonable. This place is testosterone fuelled at the best of times. But effectively arguing that MC should butt the *** out? Could we please just stop and listen to ourselves?
She interfered numerous times. She blocks people left and right on his twitter account, she argues with people all the time on this same HIS account, she explains stuff about his husband, stuff he should talk about
Do we really believe that women should be seen and not heard? Do we really believe that just because they share the load so publicly, that makes him a cuck (an insult that has been used on this thread today)?

Insult her, mock her, point out every stupid thing she does. But. Please. Park the misogyny. It's not a good look. It reeks of insecurity.
 
She got herself involved, so she's open for criticizing and vice versa. It's simple as that.
The same applies for everyone, for example Quintana's father. He get involved, he speak up publicly, so I have every right to criticize his stance, or to agree with him.
I don't agree with him, or with Michelle, and I'm perfectly entitled to do so.
That's my view.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
If a self journalist wants to. Defend someone that. Dumb and manipulative...

...insult them, mock them, point out every stupid thing they do...

...But. Please. Park the journalist specific insults. It's not a good look. It reeks of insecurity...

...Deflection tactics however are absolutely fine. Lesson No 1. At Journalist school...

...just after they teach you about. capitals and Punctuation...

...Obvs
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
GraftPunk said:
Oh, I am so looking forward to the cumuppance with some posters here. With the amount of condescending comments, that will be the best dish served cold.
Genuine question...which 'side' do you believe is guilty of condescension :confused:
I guess it depends on your definition. There are posters on here 1) who try with their fancy words trying to obfuscate at every turn (which is pathetic given most posters are not natural English speakers) 2) think they are very clever and know the inside out of cycling from a pedal to the UCI/WADA etc 3) genuine posters who, down to Union Jack specs, just can't see past Sky/Wiggins/Froome. Personally, for what's it worth, and I'm sure nobody gives 2 fucks what I think, the sooner Sky are out of the peloton the better. Why, simply it will end this puerile nationalstic crap.
 
Re: Re:

ferryman said:
brownbobby said:
GraftPunk said:
Oh, I am so looking forward to the cumuppance with some posters here. With the amount of condescending comments, that will be the best dish served cold.
Genuine question...which 'side' do you believe is guilty of condescension :confused:
I guess it depends on your definition. There are posters on here 1) who try with their fancy words trying to obfuscate at every turn (which is pathetic given most posters are not natural English speakers) 2) think they are very clever and know the inside out of cycling from a pedal to the UCI/WADA etc 3) genuine posters who, down to Union Jack specs, just can't see past Sky/Wiggins/Froome. Personally, for what's it worth, and I'm sure nobody gives 2 **** what I think, the sooner Sky are out of the peloton the better. Why, simply it will end this puerile nationalstic crap.
Offt the pain is strong
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
veganrob said:
So some people think it is just great that MC stands out front defending her man and even puts words in his mouth because he appears so naive. But she shoud be not open to any criticism fo that? Sorry, can't have it both ways. She is fair game.
Like several other cycling wives, MC plays an active role in her husband's career. Despite the misogyny inherent in the sport, she is not the first. Anquetil's wife was heavily involved in his career. Ditto Coppi's second wife: there's a great story of her hurling insults from the team car at Magni one time. These sort of actions, of course they make discussion of the person fair. No one - no one - denies that.

But. Let's try and be reasonable. This place is testosterone fuelled at the best of times. But effectively arguing that MC should butt the **** out? Could we please just stop and listen to ourselves?
She interfered numerous times. She blocks people left and right on his twitter account, she argues with people all the time on this same HIS account, she explains stuff about his husband, stuff he should talk about
Do we really believe that women should be seen and not heard? Do we really believe that just because they share the load so publicly, that makes him a cuck (an insult that has been used on this thread today)?

Insult her, mock her, point out every stupid thing she does. But. Please. Park the misogyny. It's not a good look. It reeks of insecurity.
I never said she should butt out or stop what she is doing in social media or whatever. I just said by being there, she opens herself up to criticism. And she has done her fair share of it also. i don't think she shies away from it at all
 
Back at the Ruta, one of the riders, can't remember who, said he chatted with Froome at the finish of one stage, and came away with a different understanding of his situation. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but now I think Froome may have told him he expects if there is a ban it will be proactive, i.e., no back-dating, meaning any results prior to the decision will be retained. IOW, stop worrying that Froome is riding under a cloud.

This raises an interesting situation. Froome obviously wants to ride the Giro, so if he thinks any ban will be proactive, it's in his interest that the decision be delayed till after that GT. Now maybe the decision could come sooner, but suppose there's bargaining going on. Froome is willing to accept a ban of a year, more or less, if it's proactive and comes after the Giro. He promises not to appeal (OK, we're not talking about a sworn statement, but a probable word of honor situation). WADA/UCI also promise not to appeal if the ban is a year, more or less.

Now here's the rub. The two sides could in theory come to this agreement at any time, but they can't announce it before the end of the Giro, because the ban has to begin when the decision is announced. So Froome would be riding the Giro, knowing he will keep the results, but no one else can know. So this doesn't really solve the problem of riding under a cloud, because everyone thinks he is, and all the bad publicity, complaints, threats, etc., will continue.

So what can Froome do? Maybe assure Vegni, Prudhomme, Lappartient in confidence of what the deal is? But wouldn't that also be an admission that the decision has been made? A public announcement by Froome and UCI assuring everyone that if there is a ban, it will be proactive and not be announced during the Giro? But even that would seem to be more than they could say if the decision is not official at that time. Maybe one of our lawyers can suggest a way they could pull this off.

veganrob said:
I never said she should butt out or stop what she is doing in social media or whatever. I just said by being there, she opens herself up to criticism. And she has done her fair share of it also. i don't think she shies away from it at all
I give Michelle credit for not playing the wife card (as far as I know). That contrasts with, say, Ivanka Trump, who as special assistant to the President is an official gov. employee, yet when asked about the sexual harassment claims against the President, replied, I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask the President's daughter. I think that kind of double standard is what bothers a lot of posters here, but again, I don't think Michelle herself is guilty of it. Some of her fans/defenders, but not she herself.
 
Merckx index said:
Back at the Ruta, one of the riders, can't remember who, said he chatted with Froome at the finish of one stage, and came away with a different understanding of his situation. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but now I think Froome may have told him he expects if there is a ban it will be proactive, i.e., no back-dating, meaning any results prior to the decision will be retained. IOW, stop worrying that Froome is riding under a cloud.

This raises an interesting situation. Froome obviously wants to ride the Giro, so if he thinks any ban will be proactive, it's in his interest that the decision be delayed till after that GT. Now maybe the decision could come sooner, but suppose there's bargaining going on. Froome is willing to accept a ban of a year, more or less, if it's proactive and comes after the Giro. He promises not to appeal (OK, we're not talking about a sworn statement, but a probable word of honor situation). WADA/UCI also promise not to appeal if the ban is a year, more or less.

Now here's the rub. The two sides could in theory come to this agreement at any time, but they can't announce it before the end of the Giro, because the ban has to begin when the decision is announced. So Froome would be riding the Giro, knowing he will keep the results, but no one else can know. So this doesn't really solve the problem of riding under a cloud, because everyone thinks he is, and all the bad publicity, complaints, threats, etc., will continue.

So what can Froome do? Maybe assure Vegni, Prudhomme, Lappartient in confidence of what the deal is? But wouldn't that also be an admission that the decision has been made? A public announcement by Froome and UCI assuring everyone that if there is a ban, it will be proactive and not be announced during the Giro? But even that would seem to be more than they could say if the decision is not official at that time. Maybe one of our lawyers can suggest a way they could pull this off.

veganrob said:
I never said she should butt out or stop what she is doing in social media or whatever. I just said by being there, she opens herself up to criticism. And she has done her fair share of it also. i don't think she shies away from it at all
I give Michelle credit for not playing the wife card (as far as I know). That contrasts with, say, Ivanka Trump, who as special assistant to the President is an official gov. employee, yet when asked about the sexual harassment claims against the President, replied, I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask the President's daughter. I think that kind of double standard is what bothers a lot of posters here, but again, I don't think Michelle herself is guilty of it. Some of her fans/defenders, but not she herself.
Allegedly it was Fuslang according to Froome. But I’m not sure I believe what Froome says. There was a recent video of Tom Dum refusing to shake Froome’s hand.
 
Jul 14, 2015
708
0
0
thehog said:
Allegedly it was Fuslang according to Froome. But I’m not sure I believe what Froome says. There was a recent video of Tom Dum refusing to shake Froome’s hand.
I love how "not putting his hand in with the other riders for the staged media shoot prior to the race because he is sick" has become "Tom Dum refusing to shake Froome's hand". That's some serious fake news stuff.
 
Merckx index said:
Back at the Ruta, one of the riders, can't remember who, said he chatted with Froome at the finish of one stage, and came away with a different understanding of his situation. I didn't understand what he meant at the time, but now I think Froome may have told him he expects if there is a ban it will be proactive, i.e., no back-dating, meaning any results prior to the decision will be retained. IOW, stop worrying that Froome is riding under a cloud.

This raises an interesting situation. Froome obviously wants to ride the Giro, so if he thinks any ban will be proactive, it's in his interest that the decision be delayed till after that GT. Now maybe the decision could come sooner, but suppose there's bargaining going on. Froome is willing to accept a ban of a year, more or less, if it's proactive and comes after the Giro. He promises not to appeal (OK, we're not talking about a sworn statement, but a probable word of honor situation). WADA/UCI also promise not to appeal if the ban is a year, more or less.

Now here's the rub. The two sides could in theory come to this agreement at any time, but they can't announce it before the end of the Giro, because the ban has to begin when the decision is announced. So Froome would be riding the Giro, knowing he will keep the results, but no one else can know. So this doesn't really solve the problem of riding under a cloud, because everyone thinks he is, and all the bad publicity, complaints, threats, etc., will continue.

So what can Froome do? Maybe assure Vegni, Prudhomme, Lappartient in confidence of what the deal is? But wouldn't that also be an admission that the decision has been made? A public announcement by Froome and UCI assuring everyone that if there is a ban, it will be proactive and not be announced during the Giro? But even that would seem to be more than they could say if the decision is not official at that time. Maybe one of our lawyers can suggest a way they could pull this off.

veganrob said:
I never said she should butt out or stop what she is doing in social media or whatever. I just said by being there, she opens herself up to criticism. And she has done her fair share of it also. i don't think she shies away from it at all
I give Michelle credit for not playing the wife card (as far as I know). That contrasts with, say, Ivanka Trump, who as special assistant to the President is an official gov. employee, yet when asked about the sexual harassment claims against the President, replied, I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask the President's daughter. I think that kind of double standard is what bothers a lot of posters here, but again, I don't think Michelle herself is guilty of it. Some of her fans/defenders, but not she herself.
Very interesting take.

Considering his '18 results, maybe he's riding clean now :D . For the deal to take place, he can't afford to get popped now.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
rick james said:
So Michelle Froome runs the show, her man is a multiple grand tour winner so she must be doing something right ....but the clinic knows best
rick you are part of the clinic.
you post here more than most!
Maybe, but I don’t post lies about people who I don’t know or haven’t met.. some folk obsession blinds them and makes them post some crazy bull **** stuff
you got truth, RJ
 
Re:

Craigee said:
All the Froome Fanbois here need to harden up. His wife is extremely outspoken publicly, mostly on her own twitter page. She is making herself free game for criticism.

Nice way of changing the topic from doping though and making Froome and his family into victims.
If I were them, I'd need something else than Cound being inserted to harden up.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
rick james said:
So Michelle Froome runs the show, her man is a multiple grand tour winner so she must be doing something right ....but the clinic knows best
rick you are part of the clinic.
you post here more than most!
Maybe, but I don’t post lies about people who I don’t know or haven’t met.. some folk obsession blinds them and makes them post some crazy bull **** stuff
you got truth, RJ
According to the CN podcast, there did seem to be some bad blood on TD's part towards Froome, as they said on the podcast that at the press conference or race intro, I can't remember which, TD and Froome were sat next to each other and Froome tried to initiate conversation and TD just blanked him and his body language was less than friendly and Froome apparently looked rather embarrassed. Obviously that may be just be one interpretation of events by one journalist but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Re: Re:

bigcog said:
Alpe73 said:
rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
rick james said:
So Michelle Froome runs the show, her man is a multiple grand tour winner so she must be doing something right ....but the clinic knows best
rick you are part of the clinic.
you post here more than most!
Maybe, but I don’t post lies about people who I don’t know or haven’t met.. some folk obsession blinds them and makes them post some crazy bull **** stuff
you got truth, RJ
According to the CN podcast, there did seem to be some bad blood on TD's part towards Froome, as they said on the podcast that at the press conference or race intro, I can't remember which, TD and Froome were sat next to each other and Froome tried to initiate conversation and TD just blanked him and his body language was less than friendly and Froome apparently looked rather embarrassed. Obviously that may be just be one interpretation of events by one journalist but it wouldn't surprise me.
And there you have it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts