Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1153 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
Alpe73 said:
aphronesis said:
Alpe73 said:
OK, MI ... let's run with it ... just for the hell of it.

whereas literally dozens of people speaking out in the media—including one rider who claimed that most of the peloton is in fact opposed to what Froome is doing.

So ... my question is ... who gives a ****?

Did Frazier like Ali?
Do the Mets like the Yanks?
Does Papelbom like Harper?

What's your point?

Science ... Social Science ... you're trying all the angles, that's for sure. Very thorough, I must say.
MI has some points. The peloton disliking Froome's situation/position is not the same as direct competitors having antipathy. His larger argument is that Froome (never that likable to being with) in his current tack is taking cycling down further in the lay public consciousness: making it more of a joke. For those who know. Does he have many fans outside the jingoists?
What would Jesus do? What would Sweet *** Willie say? :geek:
Not the point really. It's not a matter of what they would do as he's not either. He was always toxic in a disquieting way for the casual and he's doing no one any favors. Jesus and Slick had a fan base.
OK ... I'm dropping the Jesus allusion. Team is on the ropes, anyways.
Sweet *** Willie ... not Slick *** Willie. Goes back to allusive dig some months ago. SDW's response to BO's rally cry to boycott Zal's.

"Toxic in a disquieting way." Are we talking ... Sarin .... or maybe ..... Ricin? Fuckin RiceaRoni???
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
rick james said:
Did you see why they touched shoulders? Did you see the road? Or are you still missing races but coming on to this forum to post about said missed races?
I simply quoted from the race report. Did I say why they touched shoulders? Did I blame it on anyone? Was there anything at all in my post that wasn’t factual? Or are you still coming to this forum to respond to any post which in your opinion is negative about Froome?
I'm not even a Froome, Sky or Wiggins fan .. and I see that.
You sure are very passionate for a non-fan
If you're not a fan why do you come here day after day to argue for hours with critics of Team Sky & Froome.
And why do you choose to use funny words and jokes in a mocking manner over coherent arguments.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
rick james said:
Did you see why they touched shoulders? Did you see the road? Or are you still missing races but coming on to this forum to post about said missed races?
I simply quoted from the race report. Did I say why they touched shoulders? Did I blame it on anyone? Was there anything at all in my post that wasn’t factual? Or are you still coming to this forum to respond to any post which in your opinion is negative about Froome?
I cannot speak for RJ (altough I AM his attorney) ... but I think what he's getting at is this ...

There really is a lot of utter SHYTE perpetrated about Froome on this thread. I'm not even a Froome, Sky or Wiggins fan .. and I see that.

The ONLY thing that you've got on Froome is an AAF. That may change soon ... and there might be a ban. Fine. No worries for me ... and I'm sure, for RJ.

So ... in terms of quality, healthy discussion ... why not stick with quality arguments rather than the school yard tactics of ... "I was talking to someone ... can't say who, Rohan ... but (shhhh) ... but ... the boys don't like Chrissy; notawordofalie, my son.
And herein lies our problem...

you seem to willing to sub-contract your critical faculties to third parties...be they the UCI, a bunch of MPs or the popular press...

anyone who understands pro-cycling and who has been a cyclist knows that in the Vuelta 2011 we saw someone who had transformed in such a way that only had one possible explanation...you may see the AAF as the ONLY thing...others just see it as Capone being done for tax

irrespective of ban, its bleedin' obvious how froome 'transformed'....a ban, a bunch of MPs or various press reports do not change one's abilities to understand.

I shouldn't need to elaborate but I will :) For example, the DCMS report was useful not necessarily (as correct as they may be) in its conclusions, but in the layers of additional information we saw about the SKY operation....the likes of you and Sam talk about the narrow world of positive tests and rules...these are things we know, we also know that rules and tests can be worked around (easily). So, where does the thinking person go?....behind the facade...behind the Wizard's curtain....Collins may only be Toto, but he's given us a rare glimpse of the workings of 'sausage machine' which we don't normally get...... again, the conclusion from which can only be bleedin' obvious...

same with Levenson, Chilcott, Hutton..........etc etc

but you know that ;)

So in terms of quality discussion, why not move behind the positive tests on which you so rely and which we know are very poor indicators of PED use and use your imagination......
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
You sure are very passionate for a non-fan
If you're not a fan why do you come here day after day to argue for hours with critics of Team Sky & Froome.
And why do you choose to use funny words and jokes in a mocking manner over coherent arguments.
you´re not a Froome fan either Flo :p
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
So in terms of quality discussion, why not move behind the positive tests on which you so rely and which we know are very poor indicators of PED use and use your imagination......
In terms of quality discussion, why always bog it down in angels and demons and not instead move it to addressing the real problems that allow these issues to recur time and time again. Or would we rather those issues were never resolved so this time next year we can still be here talking about a new crop of angels and demons?
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
So if we're all suddenly feeling so sorry for the Dawg who's gonna boot up a Kickstarter to pay his legal fees? Times are hard for Monaco's finest

We could call it the Dawg Fairness Fund. Can't wait until the Ethics Are For Losers gang do a runner with it!
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
rick james said:
Did you see why they touched shoulders? Did you see the road? Or are you still missing races but coming on to this forum to post about said missed races?
I simply quoted from the race report. Did I say why they touched shoulders? Did I blame it on anyone? Was there anything at all in my post that wasn’t factual? Or are you still coming to this forum to respond to any post which in your opinion is negative about Froome?
I cannot speak for RJ (altough I AM his attorney) ... but I think what he's getting at is this ...

There really is a lot of utter SHYTE perpetrated about Froome on this thread. I'm not even a Froome, Sky [/b]or Wiggins fan .. and I see that.

The ONLY thing that you've got on Froome is an AAF. That may change soon ... and there might be a ban. Fine. No worries for me ... and I'm sure, for RJ.

So ... in terms of quality, healthy discussion ... why not stick with quality arguments rather than the school yard tactics of ... "I was talking to someone ... can't say who, Rohan ... but (shhhh) ... but ... the boys don't like Chrissy; notawordofalie, my son.


Oh you're a fan alright! One of the biggest around here...
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
rick james said:
Did you see why they touched shoulders? Did you see the road? Or are you still missing races but coming on to this forum to post about said missed races?
I simply quoted from the race report. Did I say why they touched shoulders? Did I blame it on anyone? Was there anything at all in my post that wasn’t factual? Or are you still coming to this forum to respond to any post which in your opinion is negative about Froome?
I'm not even a Froome, Sky or Wiggins fan .. and I see that.
You sure are very passionate for a non-fan
If you're not a fan why do you come here day after day to argue for hours with critics of Team Sky & Froome.
And why do you choose to use funny words and jokes in a mocking manner over coherent arguments.
1. You call it 'passionate' ... I call it fair mindedness. If the the relevant governing bodies issue a sanction for Froome, I have ZERO ZERO problem with that. Your Kangaroo Court based on suspicions, not enough clear facts... or based on your belief that Sky/Froome are arrogant... or based on the fact that you're a 'Real cycling fan" ... I have ZERO time for that.
2. I have about 400 posts ... ever. You have 29,000 more than me.
3. Some of my posts are valid, coherent and to the point. I use humour sometimes to revel in the ridiculousness of some of the arguments
4. Like you, I have a right to all of the above. :)
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
Merckx index said:
rick james said:
Did you see why they touched shoulders? Did you see the road? Or are you still missing races but coming on to this forum to post about said missed races?
I simply quoted from the race report. Did I say why they touched shoulders? Did I blame it on anyone? Was there anything at all in my post that wasn’t factual? Or are you still coming to this forum to respond to any post which in your opinion is negative about Froome?
I cannot speak for RJ (altough I AM his attorney) ... but I think what he's getting at is this ...

There really is a lot of utter SHYTE perpetrated about Froome on this thread. I'm not even a Froome, Sky or Wiggins fan .. and I see that.

The ONLY thing that you've got on Froome is an AAF. That may change soon ... and there might be a ban. Fine. No worries for me ... and I'm sure, for RJ.

So ... in terms of quality, healthy discussion ... why not stick with quality arguments rather than the school yard tactics of ... "I was talking to someone ... can't say who, Rohan ... but (shhhh) ... but ... the boys don't like Chrissy; notawordofalie, my son.
And herein lies our problem...

you seem to willing to sub-contract your critical faculties to third parties...be they the UCI, a bunch of MPs or the popular press...

anyone who understands pro-cycling and who has been a cyclist knows that in the Vuelta 2011 we saw someone who had transformed in such a way that only had one possible explanation...you may see the AAF as the ONLY thing...others just see it as Capone being done for tax

irrespective of ban, its bleedin' obvious how froome 'transformed'....a ban, a bunch of MPs or various press reports do not change one's abilities to understand.

I shouldn't need to elaborate but I will :) For example, the DCMS report was useful not necessarily (as correct as they may be) in its conclusions, but in the layers of additional information we saw about the SKY operation....the likes of you and Sam talk about the narrow world of positive tests and rules...these are things we know, we also know that rules and tests can be worked around (easily). So, where does the thinking person go?....behind the facade...behind the Wizard's curtain....Collins may only be Toto, but he's given us a rare glimpse of the workings of 'sausage machine' which we don't normally get...... again, the conclusion from which can only be bleedin' obvious...

same with Levenson, Chilcott, Hutton..........etc etc

but you know that ;)

So in terms of quality discussion, why not move behind the positive tests on which you so rely and which we know are very poor indicators of PED use and use your imagination......
Not enough room on this board for my little bitty imagination and the feckin tidal bore of imagination, speculation, and suspicion that surges here each day.
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Wiggo's Package said:
Can't wait until the Ethics Are For Losers gang do a runner with it!
As a sequel to the rather tiresome Kool Aid and the Gang, your new Ethics Are For Losers line is up there with Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.
Your gags appear to be just as crap as mine ;)
 
Jun 26, 2017
394
0
0
thehog said:
Ironhead Slim said:
It is the Flowers for Algernon effect.


thehog said:
How did Dawg do today? Was he on 2010 Commonwealth Games sandshoe form? :cool:
Just saw, 20 seconds down on a short ITT. Not bad, not good for the World Championship bronze medalist.
19 secs down. One sec slower than an ITT World Champion and 7 secs faster than another ITT World Champion. Yeah, not bad for a sandshoe man :p
 
miguelindurain111 said:
thehog said:
Ironhead Slim said:
It is the Flowers for Algernon effect.


thehog said:
How did Dawg do today? Was he on 2010 Commonwealth Games sandshoe form? :cool:
Just saw, 20 seconds down on a short ITT. Not bad, not good for the World Championship bronze medalist.
19 secs down. One sec slower than an ITT World Champion and 7 secs faster than another ITT World Champion. Yeah, not bad for a sandshoe man :p
Lol
 
Wiggo's Package said:
Rollthedice said:
thehog said:
Ironhead Slim said:
It is the Flowers for Algernon effect.


thehog said:
How did Dawg do today? Was he on 2010 Commonwealth Games sandshoe form? :cool:
Just saw, 20 seconds down on a short ITT. Not bad, not good for the World Championship bronze medalist.
Nothing a few weeks on Teide can't fix.
Kenalog with your cornflakes, sir?
He definitely is chubby now by dawg standards. He just needs to loose the extra fat, get down to 3% and he's good to go.
 
Rollthedice said:
thehog said:
Ironhead Slim said:
It is the Flowers for Algernon effect.


thehog said:
How did Dawg do today? Was he on 2010 Commonwealth Games sandshoe form? :cool:
Just saw, 20 seconds down on a short ITT. Not bad, not good for the World Championship bronze medalist.
Nothing a few weeks on Teide can't fix.
I'd imagine Froome would be satisfied with his performance yesterday. He was fastest of those who rode in the wet (beating Thomas who was riding for podium place).

Looks to me that his prep is going well.
 
Cycle Chic said:
https://twitter.com/damienhef/status/972975802575933443

This video is so cringeworthy it’s funny. The two most forced coughs you’ll ever see. If this is the best his PR team can come up with.**** the Hypocrisy added,

The coughs are from the ridiculous amount of asthma inhalations he's taking....not a nervous rehearsed cough...he coughs as soon as he gets over the finish line so its not rehearsed.
Andalucia coughing after the effort last month (not interviewed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcLwh2nGbGI

TDF 2008 coughing aftre the TT effort (interviewed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=265&v=NttM0p8Q_yU
 
pastronef said:
Cycle Chic said:
https://twitter.com/damienhef/status/972975802575933443

This video is so cringeworthy it’s funny. The two most forced coughs you’ll ever see. If this is the best his PR team can come up with.**** the Hypocrisy added,

The coughs are from the ridiculous amount of asthma inhalations he's taking....not a nervous rehearsed cough...he coughs as soon as he gets over the finish line so its not rehearsed.
Andalucia coughing after the effort last month (not interviewed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcLwh2nGbGI

TDF 2008 coughing aftre the TT effort (interviewed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=265&v=NttM0p8Q_yU
There was a time when Ullrich’s stomach was the hot pre-season talk. Now Froome’s cough :cool:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY