Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1155 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
How Vegas sees this. The amount of money you win by betting $100 on the various propositions:

When the decision will be announced:


Before TA2: $325
Before the Giro: $100
Before the end of the Giro: $75
Before the TDF: $25

What the decision will be:

Exoneration: $375
Less than one year: $225
One year: $150
Two years: $300

When any ban will begin:

Backdated: $300
Proactive: $33
 
Merckx index said:
How Vegas sees this. The amount of money you win by betting $100 on the various propositions:

When the decision will be announced:


Before TA2: $325
Before the Giro: $100
Before the end of the Giro: $75
Before the TDF: $25

What the decision will be:

Exoneration: $375
Less than one year: $225
One year: $150
Two years: $300

When any ban will begin:

Backdated: $300
Proactive: $33
Where do these odds come from? Genuine question. And what is TA2? Tour of the Alps?

I think on the basis of past cases the 'less than one year' option offers good value. Put it in an accumulator with the proactive ban (which is a near certainty) and that's a tidy return.
 
thehog said:
Greg Henderson who Froome used to give up his wheel has some words for the Dawg:

"What I can't understand is that Chris Froome has tested higher for salbutamol than any guy we've ever heard of and all the others received bans.

"They're talking Chris Froome not getting a ban and that doesn't make any sense to me."

One of the reasons why Henderson signed with Team Sky in 2010 was because of their strong anti-doping policy.

"That was the thing, there were be barely cough mixture or medication for colds given out," Henderson said.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/102156081/greg-henderson-questions-ethics-of-his-former-outfit-team-sky
Who's talking that Froome won't get a ban? I have to say, if the UCI screws this one up -- and believe me, they certainly can -- will be hard for Lappartient to regain credibility. Did the UCI cut a "deal" with Sky? It's possible, but any deal would involve a ban, otherwise it's not a deal.

However, I admit that I just cannot fathom what's really going on here. Surely the UCI has imposed a deadline on Sky or Froome to either take a suspension or offer proof to counter the AAF...
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
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. :)
All in your own mind mate. All in your own mind.

You say you have the right to all the above, yet you and the other fanbois are doing all you can to shut others up who have differing views to yours. You're not fair minded at all. In fact you're closed minded.
 
I'm not a huge cycling fan. Never did it myself. More a rugby league background being from down under but my son is a cyclist which makes cycling a definite interest for me and I watch a lot of cycling on TV because I like sports in general. However if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's usually a duck and Froome and Sky are clearly no angels to anyone with even a casual interest in the sport. No needles policy indeed. That was their motto remember.

Another thing you fanbois can't get your heads around on this forum. That this is a forum called The Clinic about a sport infamous for doping. If you think that it can go from 99% doping by the successful teams and riders to 99% clean in a few years, then your heads are planted firmly in the clouds and you often resort to making it personal with the posters who post against your idols . This fact shows you have a very poor argument doesn't it.
 
Re:

Craigee said:
I'm not a huge cycling fan. Never did it myself. More a rugby league background being from down under but my son is a cyclist which makes cycling a definite interest for me and I watch a lot of cycling on TV because I like sports in general. However if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's usually a duck and Froome and Sky are clearly no angels to anyone with even a casual interest in the sport. No needles policy indeed. That was their motto remember.

Another thing you fanbois can't get your heads around on this forum. That this is a forum called The Clinic about a sport infamous for doping. If you think that it can go from 99% doping by the successful teams and riders to 99% clean in a few years, then your heads are planted firmly in the clouds and you often resort to making it personal with the posters who post against your idols . This fact shows you have a very poor argument doesn't it.
Oh the irony of this and your previous post.

Fanbois... indeed :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Re:

Craigee said:
I'm not a huge cycling fan. Never did it myself. More a rugby league background being from down under but my son is a cyclist which makes cycling a definite interest for me and I watch a lot of cycling on TV because I like sports in general. However if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's usually a duck and Froome and Sky are clearly no angels to anyone with even a casual interest in the sport. No needles policy indeed. That was their motto remember.

Another thing you fanbois can't get your heads around on this forum. That this is a forum called The Clinic about a sport infamous for doping. If you think that it can go from 99% doping by the successful teams and riders to 99% clean in a few years, then your heads are planted firmly in the clouds and you often resort to making it personal with the posters who post against your idols . This fact shows you have a very poor argument doesn't it.
You'll fit right in :lol:
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Bolder said:
thehog said:
Greg Henderson who Froome used to give up his wheel has some words for the Dawg:

"What I can't understand is that Chris Froome has tested higher for salbutamol than any guy we've ever heard of and all the others received bans.

"They're talking Chris Froome not getting a ban and that doesn't make any sense to me."

One of the reasons why Henderson signed with Team Sky in 2010 was because of their strong anti-doping policy.

"That was the thing, there were be barely cough mixture or medication for colds given out," Henderson said.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/102156081/greg-henderson-questions-ethics-of-his-former-outfit-team-sky
Who's talking that Froome won't get a ban? I have to say, if the UCI screws this one up -- and believe me, they certainly can -- will be hard for Lappartient to regain credibility. Did the UCI cut a "deal" with Sky? It's possible, but any deal would involve a ban, otherwise it's not a deal.

However, I admit that I just cannot fathom what's really going on here. Surely the UCI has imposed a deadline on Sky or Froome to either take a suspension or offer proof to counter the AAF...
Look at IOC, UCI, FIFA etc.

The normal procedure, and result of controversy is based in monetary reason.

In this case, there is doubt i think.

What is the best deal?

I reckon they drag it all out because people will grow tired and swipe on, until the final result will not really matter.

Everything will be so blurred that the casual fan will not offer any more thought to it.

The show goes on.
 
mrhender said:
Bolder said:
thehog said:
Greg Henderson who Froome used to give up his wheel has some words for the Dawg:

"What I can't understand is that Chris Froome has tested higher for salbutamol than any guy we've ever heard of and all the others received bans.

"They're talking Chris Froome not getting a ban and that doesn't make any sense to me."

One of the reasons why Henderson signed with Team Sky in 2010 was because of their strong anti-doping policy.

"That was the thing, there were be barely cough mixture or medication for colds given out," Henderson said.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/102156081/greg-henderson-questions-ethics-of-his-former-outfit-team-sky
Who's talking that Froome won't get a ban? I have to say, if the UCI screws this one up -- and believe me, they certainly can -- will be hard for Lappartient to regain credibility. Did the UCI cut a "deal" with Sky? It's possible, but any deal would involve a ban, otherwise it's not a deal.

However, I admit that I just cannot fathom what's really going on here. Surely the UCI has imposed a deadline on Sky or Froome to either take a suspension or offer proof to counter the AAF...
Look at IOC, UCI, FIFA etc.

The normal procedure, and result of controversy is based in monetary reason.

In this case, there is doubt i think.

What is the best deal?

I reckon they drag it all out because people will grow tired and swipe on, until the final result will not really matter.

Everything will be so blurred that the casual fan will not offer any more thought to it.

The show goes on.
Hardly :confused:
there has been no real show in his two races so far


PS -you can feel the radio silence in the Clinic this morning
thanks Mods!
 
Mar 7, 2017
1,098
0
0
TourOfSardinia said:
mrhender said:
Bolder said:
thehog said:
Greg Henderson who Froome used to give up his wheel has some words for the Dawg:

"What I can't understand is that Chris Froome has tested higher for salbutamol than any guy we've ever heard of and all the others received bans.

"They're talking Chris Froome not getting a ban and that doesn't make any sense to me."

One of the reasons why Henderson signed with Team Sky in 2010 was because of their strong anti-doping policy.

"That was the thing, there were be barely cough mixture or medication for colds given out," Henderson said.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/102156081/greg-henderson-questions-ethics-of-his-former-outfit-team-sky
Who's talking that Froome won't get a ban? I have to say, if the UCI screws this one up -- and believe me, they certainly can -- will be hard for Lappartient to regain credibility. Did the UCI cut a "deal" with Sky? It's possible, but any deal would involve a ban, otherwise it's not a deal.

However, I admit that I just cannot fathom what's really going on here. Surely the UCI has imposed a deadline on Sky or Froome to either take a suspension or offer proof to counter the AAF...
Look at IOC, UCI, FIFA etc.

The normal procedure, and result of controversy is based in monetary reason.

In this case, there is doubt i think.

What is the best deal?

I reckon they drag it all out because people will grow tired and swipe on, until the final result will not really matter.

Everything will be so blurred that the casual fan will not offer any more thought to it.

The show goes on.
Hardly :confused:
there has been no real show in his two races so far


PS -you can feel the radio silence in the Clinic this morning
thanks Mods!
Yes, thanks mods

Back on topic, in years to come folk will look back with sardonically raised eyebrows at the correlation between Uncle Brian's time at the UCI and Team Sky's domination of the TdF

The Dawg needs to smash the rest of 2018 to prove wrong the theory that he can only win with high level political protection. Go Froomey!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Craigee said:
I'm not a huge cycling fan. Never did it myself. More a rugby league background being from down under but my son is a cyclist which makes cycling a definite interest for me and I watch a lot of cycling on TV because I like sports in general. However if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's usually a duck and Froome and Sky are clearly no angels to anyone with even a casual interest in the sport. No needles policy indeed. That was their motto remember.

Another thing you fanbois can't get your heads around on this forum. That this is a forum called The Clinic about a sport infamous for doping. If you think that it can go from 99% doping by the successful teams and riders to 99% clean in a few years, then your heads are planted firmly in the clouds and you often resort to making it personal with the posters who post against your idols . This fact shows you have a very poor argument doesn't it.
Oh the irony of this and your previous post.

Fanbois... indeed :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm not on any pedestal preaching anything. I'm all for open discussions and debates and arguments. I'm merely pointing out the irony of the Froome, Sky fanbois posting style. It is they who are trying their best to shift the goal posts and make their team and riders out to be victims when they deserve all they get.
 
Re: Re:

Craigee said:
I'm not on any pedestal preaching anything. I'm all for open discussions and debates and arguments. I'm merely pointing out the irony of the Froome, Sky fanbois posting style. It is they who are trying their best to shift the goal posts and make their team and riders out to be victims when they deserve all they get.
This is how it goes, it was the same with Armstrong and to a much smaller degree with Pantani and Ullrich. First it was "no one from the team has ever said anything about doping, there's just no smoke like there was with Armstrong", then it was a whole lot of goal-post moving and excuses about Tramadol, needles, and TUE's. Then the goal posts were moved to "an AAF isn't a conviction" and "there's no proof anyone took the testosterone despite it being sent accidentally to the team" and "we don't know what really was in the jiffy bag". We're now in the throes of "everyone's doing it". Utterly predictable on all counts.

Those who need to believe will adjust to whatever new information comes their way. "I was wrong" and "I was duped" are lonely phrases, seldom heard in these forums. Sad when they would be a simple way to restore credibility. The forum would be a lot better with a dose of self-reflection and candor on this topic.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
Craigee said:
I'm not on any pedestal preaching anything. I'm all for open discussions and debates and arguments. I'm merely pointing out the irony of the Froome, Sky fanbois posting style. It is they who are trying their best to shift the goal posts and make their team and riders out to be victims when they deserve all they get.
This is how it goes, it was the same with Armstrong and to a much smaller degree with Pantani and Ullrich. First it was "no one from the team has ever said anything about doping, there's just no smoke like there was with Armstrong", then it was a whole lot of goal-post moving and excuses about Tramadol, needles, and TUE's. Then the goal posts were moved to "an AAF isn't a conviction" and "there's no proof anyone took the testosterone despite it being sent accidentally to the team" and "we don't know what really was in the jiffy bag". We're now in the throes of "everyone's doing it". Utterly predictable on all counts.

Those who need to believe will adjust to whatever new information comes their way. "I was wrong" and "I was duped" are lonely phrases, seldom heard in these forums. Sad when they would be a simple way to restore credibility. The forum would be a lot better with a dose of self-reflection and candor on this topic.
This all may be true to an extent, but someone/anyone thumping their chest about the obvious conclusion that Froome is doped with team approval and, say, tacit, state bureaucratic/infrastructural assistance (knowing or not) still has to face the counterargument or objection that not every jacked up thing they say is true, likely, on point, morally/ethically elevated and so on.

What lofty battles are a decent percentage of those anti-Armstrong warriors out there waging now? I'll guess few to none. Cycling cleaner? Who can say. More discrete? Sure. Did it bring great "advances" in US sport?

I think an issue is that people move this subject in and out of various social/cultural/philosophical registers without ever being honest about the stake for cycling, for themselves, etc and how they would honestly see it not happening across the board.

Fighting for ideals without an end isn't particularly impressive.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
aphronesis said:
I think an issue is that people move this subject in and out of various social/cultural/philosophical registers without ever being honest about the stake for cycling, for themselves, etc and how they would honestly see it not happening across the board. Fighting for ideals without an end isn't particularly impressive.
Giubilo interviews Coppi, 1952 [in my own literal translation]

Sergio Giubilo: "Tu la prendi, Fausto Coppi?" [Do you take 'The Bomb', Fausto Coppi?]
Coppi: "Naturalmente." [Of course, naturally.]

Giubilo: "Tutti i corridori prendono la bomba?" [Do all the bike racers take 'The Bomb'?]
Coppi: "Sì, tutti, e a quelli che dicono di non prenderne è bene non avvicinarsi con fiammiferi accesi."
[Yes, all of them do, and as for those who say they don't partake, it would be best not to approach them with burning matches...]

Giubilo: "Quando prendi la bomba?" [When would you take 'The Bomb'?]
Coppi: "Quando serve." [When needed.]

Giubilo: " … e quando serve?" [And when is it needed?]
Giubilo: "Quasi sempre." [Almost always.]

The classic cyclists who cheated the old-fashioned-way, doped openly, and ridiculed the idea that cyclists don't dope... that's a lot more honorable than what we have seen in the modern era. I hate the liars, especially the fake authorities, and sanctimonious liars who pretend to be morally superior, when they are actually much more unethical. If Lance had said, since the 1990s, "Of course I have doped all my career, and I dare you to catch me doping", that would be more respectable. Fausto Coppi versus Gino Bartali is my favorite doping mystery story of all time

Solution to the ethical dilemma is easy for the vast majority of bike racers, including myself: don't go professional. No problem, since we can't do it anyway, and if not racing for money, then don't need to dope
I think it started because being angry about doping sold newspaper. Then it started leading it's own life.
 
Look, I hated how LA took it up in a US 90s way; much in the way that Wiggins and Froome could be seen coming from a mile off in the culture they chose to inhabit.

edit. RR, not outside Northern European culture: there was both the question of cycling as sport and the conviction that real sports don’t dope.
 
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
 
Re: Re:

ClassicomanoLuigi said:
The classic cyclists who cheated the old-fashioned-way, doped openly, and ridiculed the idea that cyclists don't dope... that's a lot more honorable than what we have seen in the modern era. I hate the liars, especially the fake authorities, and sanctimonious liars who pretend to be morally superior, when they are actually much more unethical. If Lance had said, since the 1990s, "Of course I have doped all my career, and I dare you to catch me doping", that would be more respectable. Fausto Coppi versus Gino Bartali is my favorite doping mystery story of all time

Solution to the ethical dilemma is easy for the vast majority of bike racers, including myself: don't go professional. No problem, since we can't do it anyway, and if not racing for money, then don't need to dope
You need to ditch the rose-tinted Oakleys ClassicomanoLuigi, they're making you imagine a past there never was. There has always been an ethical, a moral dimension to the use of pharmacology. It's there in the 1890s, it's there in the 1950s, it's there today. The riders who doped openly ... they're few and far between, a pigment of your rosey imagination.

You also need to consider public attitudes: fans didn't care, not in any grest numbers. Riders could afford to be somewhat open. That changed over time. Look at the blowback the likes of Simpson and Elliott suffered from the peloton for being 'open' less than a decade after that too oft quoted crap from Coppi.

Jump forward to 2018 and there's good reason riders don't want to talk about pharmacology, legal or illegal: the new puritans - too many of whom have set up a permanent encampment here - twist everything to suit their blinkered vision of an amoral world of sport in need of being saved by their 'heroic' pursuit of 'truth', this despite the fact that our new puritans know sport has never been pure.

If you want honesty from the riders, start with making the hypocritical fans more honest. Start with the new puritans.
 
fmk_RoI:
Jump forward to 2018 and there's good reason riders don't want to talk about pharmacology, legal or illegal: the new puritans - too many of whom have set up a permanent encampment here - twist everything to suit their blinkered vision of an amoral world of sport in need of being saved by their 'heroic' pursuit of 'truth', this despite the fact that our new puritans know sport has never been pure.

If you want honesty from the riders, start with making the hypocritical fans more honest. Start with the new puritans.
Hi fmk_RoI
I'd love sympathise with your pity the riders topsy turvy logic
Riders are why we are all here after all.
But team sky were the new puritans
Jump to 2012
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/team-sky-riders-and-staff-must-sign-anti-doping-policy-37869
The team said in a statement: “Team Sky has had a clear position on doping from the very start. We are a clean team and have shown it is possible to win clean.

“We want a team in which riders are free of the risks of doping and in which fans – new and old – can believe without any doubt or hesitation.

“There is no place in Team Sky for those with an involvement in doping, whether past or present. This applies to management, support staff and riders.”
 
Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
fmk_RoI:
Jump forward to 2018 and there's good reason riders don't want to talk about pharmacology, legal or illegal: the new puritans - too many of whom have set up a permanent encampment here - twist everything to suit their blinkered vision of an amoral world of sport in need of being saved by their 'heroic' pursuit of 'truth', this despite the fact that our new puritans know sport has never been pure.

If you want honesty from the riders, start with making the hypocritical fans more honest. Start with the new puritans.
Hi fmk_RoI
I'd love sympathise with your pity the riders topsy turvy logic
Riders are why we are all here after all.
But team sky were the new puritans
Jump to 2012
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/team-sky-riders-and-staff-must-sign-anti-doping-policy-37869
The team said in a statement: “Team Sky has had a clear position on doping from the very start. We are a clean team and have shown it is possible to win clean.

“We want a team in which riders are free of the risks of doping and in which fans – new and old – can believe without any doubt or hesitation.

“There is no place in Team Sky for those with an involvement in doping, whether past or present. This applies to management, support staff and riders.”
I don't think that's what he said.

So what are you doing? Repeating the obvious 6 years after?
 
Re: Re:

aphronesis said:
TourOfSardinia said:
fmk_RoI:
Jump forward to 2018 and there's good reason riders don't want to talk about pharmacology, legal or illegal: the new puritans - too many of whom have set up a permanent encampment here - twist everything to suit their blinkered vision of an amoral world of sport in need of being saved by their 'heroic' pursuit of 'truth', this despite the fact that our new puritans know sport has never been pure.

If you want honesty from the riders, start with making the hypocritical fans more honest. Start with the new puritans.
Hi fmk_RoI
I'd love sympathise with your pity the riders topsy turvy logic
Riders are why we are all here after all.
But team sky were the new puritans
Jump to 2012
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/team-sky-riders-and-staff-must-sign-anti-doping-policy-37869
The team said in a statement: “Team Sky has had a clear position on doping from the very start. We are a clean team and have shown it is possible to win clean.

“We want a team in which riders are free of the risks of doping and in which fans – new and old – can believe without any doubt or hesitation.

“There is no place in Team Sky for those with an involvement in doping, whether past or present. This applies to management, support staff and riders.”
I don't think that's what he said.

So what are you doing? Repeating the obvious 6 years after?
ToS is doing what ToS does. I'd verbify it but that'd only make ToS toss more...
 
Re:

Craigee said:
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
There is no way a person's medical records should be made available to the public in any endeavour of life - This is one of the more bizarre posts in The Clinic.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Craigee said:
I don't go along with the last couple of posts.

If everyone said flat No to Doping, it is not acceptable in any way, we wouldn't have today's Doping culture and I include the UCI and Wada. They let it happen. There should be no TUE's. If you're crook you're crook and you definitely shouldn't be capable of winning any bike race even with medication if you're really crook. I've been crook and taken medication and never made a miraculous recovery good enough to win any athletic event. It still takes time to heal or recover, if you're actually sick.

Also all doctor's records related to an athlete's athletic abilities should be open to the public. Not hidden away under a stupid privacy policy.

Do they want to clear up doping or not? Well of course not which is why they have the TUE system and the secret so called privacy medical records policies.

It's crooked from top to bottom.
There is no way a person's medical records should be made available to the public in any endeavour of life - This is one of the more bizarre posts in The Clinic.
Why? You're a public figure. Who cares?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY