• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1248 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how shitty the testing is. :)
 
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)
but it is not.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)

I have not seen this published.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
silvergrenade said:
Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)

I have not seen this published.
I don't think lawyers do Pro Bono work for millionaire tax exiles
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Benotti69 said:
silvergrenade said:
Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)

I have not seen this published.
I don't think lawyers do Pro Bono work for millionaire tax exiles

Is Sky not paying it?
 
Re: Re:

JosephK said:
At a certain point all these broken promises get old, and them harping on about how they're keeping these promises despite the mountain of evidence that says the opposite gets annoying. Sky are both louder about their cleanliness than most teams and dirtier than most teams. It's the sort of hypocrisy they deserve to be called out on.

We're the paragon of minutiae-driven exactitude, cutting-edge compilers of vanguard methods (always above board), uncompromising in our standards, demanding adherence to the highest ethical principles and practices, unwavering in our tireless work ethic, insistent on continuous perfection of every clean training detail known to sports and humanity. And transparency -- Mon dieu! We're all about transparency. Gotta have it. But yeah, about that jiffy bag, no worries. Doc's laptop? Uh, yeah, well that got lost, sorry. And records? what records? Uh, yeah, about those testosterone patches, that was a mis-delivery. TUEs? We didn't believe in them, but ah, if you've got a sore knee, the tramadol works wonders (and so many of our guys get sore knees). Yeah, that asthma bug is a real buzz-kill, too. Thank goodness for Salbutamol . . . don't even need a TUE for it. But listen, we're completely intolerant of dopers and anyone associated with that foul practice, that's one thing we can agree on. Leinders? Yeah, who could have known it when we hired the dude? Can you believe it? What? Motors? Hey now! That is completely over the line. Come on, you know us better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caveat emptor.

These are just your complaints ... about frustrations ... about not being privy to Team Sky information. What ever led you to believe that you, a cycling fan, should/would be privy to it?

Team Sky lied to you? OK. I'll take your word on that.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
These are just your complaints ... about frustrations ... about not being privy to Team Sky information. What ever led you to believe that you, a cycling fan, should/would be privy to it?

Ah...Sky did. Multiple times. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re:

Mamil said:
Ah...Sky did. Multiple times. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:
Brailsfraud is hilarious with that stuff. But hey, he's put it out there even more. If anyone can make it to hang around with Sky, there's the quote below (thanks to Cyclingtips)

"It would be nice if we could just get in touch with some people and invite them and say, just come and have a look at what we do. Come and talk to us, come and see us"
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
silvergrenade said:
Saint Unix said:
silvergrenade said:
1500 or 150000 or 15000000, at the end of the day its not Froome at fault. ;)

Actually, since it's the athlete's responsibility and the athlete's responsibility alone to ensure they don't take any banned substances or too much of a controlled substance, this whole case is entirely Froome's fault.
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)
but it is not.
And that is your opinion. Which I respect.
Froome/Sky apparently don't. And that's all that matters tbh
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Mamil said:
Alpe73 said:
These are just your complaints ... about frustrations ... about not being privy to Team Sky information. What ever led you to believe that you, a cycling fan, should/would be privy to it?

Ah...Sky did. Multiple times. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:

Appears that you read furtively .... and with minimal comprehension of nuance. ;)

it's not nuance...they said it....SDB just's done it again...we await the invite for PK to shadow Froome at Le Tour :D
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
Alpe73 said:
Mamil said:
Alpe73 said:
These are just your complaints ... about frustrations ... about not being privy to Team Sky information. What ever led you to believe that you, a cycling fan, should/would be privy to it?

Ah...Sky did. Multiple times. That's kind of the point :rolleyes:

Appears that you read furtively .... and with minimal comprehension of nuance. ;)

it's not nuance...they said it....SDB just's done it again...we await the invite for PK to shadow Froome at Le Tour :D

Gillian .... brutha .... slow on the old uptake there this morning? Have Wee Janet ;) make you a cuppa something strong.

Let me help you a bit .... why would anyone be so gullible to believe that a multinational pro sports team was going to “share” (anything meaningful) with the fans. And rightfully so. None of your or my business, mate. If we don’t like it .... I dunno ... we could boycott all things SKY.

We get what we pay for. Take it or leave it.

Cheers, man.
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
Alpe73 said:
So ... you’re more pissed that they reneged on promised uber transparency ... rather than being pissed at not releasing their data .... like most teams do/don’t?
Well, they've shown themselves willing to continuously lie about how transparent they are. To use a Sir Dave-ism, you don't lie on a Monday, but not on a Tuesday. Liars gonna lie. What else are they lying about?

The lack of transparency and unwillingness to hold themselves to the high standards they set as part of their mission statement back when the team was first founded is obviously very much related to this thread. They've shown their hypocrisy when it comes to transparency, just like they've shown similar when it comes to the zero tolerance policy and the no needle rule.

At a certain point all these broken promises get old, and them harping on about how they're keeping these promises despite the mountain of evidence that says the opposite gets annoying. Sky are both louder about their cleanliness than most teams and dirtier than most teams. It's the sort of hypocrisy they deserve to be called out on.

That's because the microphones are always shoved in their faces and the amp volume is turned up to max.

Just a suggestion...if you're convinced beyond any persuasion that Sky and all other teams are doping, and the denial of it offends you so much then cover your ears up, because you sure as hell ain't going to get an honest answer or a confession to the question just because a journalist asks repeatedly.

Enjoy the show or tune out. We've all got that choice at least
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Let me help you a bit .... why would anyone be so gullible to believe that a multinational pro sports team was going to “share” (anything meaningful) with the fans. And rightfully so. None of your or my business, mate. If we don’t like it .... I dunno ... we could boycott all things SKY.

Almost no-one with any sense ever believed it. I certainly didn't. But they've said it, pledged it, and preached it, many times - transparency, data-sharing, 'open' processes, zero tolerance, honesty, having people come and observe, etc. etc. Data sharing is only part of the narrative that Sky have created. You can make good arguments for why it in itself is a bad idea, but then don't offer it. But of that, and all the rest, much of which was perfectly achievable had they actually wanted to do it, the pledges and statements have been honoured almost entirely in the breach.

Simple question - are you comfortable with a sporting team that so consistently and brazenly lies to and deceives the public and its fans? It's not a question of whether they should do this or that, it's what they say they'll do, and then usually don't. Does that bother you at all? Or do you see it all as just part of the 'show', a pantomime if you will?
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Well in his mind he didn't take any banned substance.
In that case, the entire fault lies in the testing and the limit they've put up. ;)
And to prove that he's right, he had to put out a significant chunk of his earnings to get a legal team to tell how ****** the testing is. :)

Tongue in cheek there I know, but the reality of the awkwardness for Froome is that he, like most other prominent riders when they bother to mention it at all, has been fond of telling the media that he believes in the testing and its effectiveness. But now that its given him an adverse result, he's got together a team to spent a lot of time and money and draft 1500 pages arguing why it's actually not.

Understandable, but not the greatest look for him, or for the sport.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chr...nce-preparations-after-giro-ditalia-recovery/

While the team claim Froome went into the Giro deliberately undercooked in a bid to gain form as the race went on, Kerrison suggested they won't be able to afford to hit the Tour in the same way, with a team time trial, cobbles, and punchy finishes making for a complicated first week before the mountains appear in the second half.

"We definitely need to arrive at the beginning of the Tour ready to race. The first nine days are going to be very interesting this year, with the TTT on stage 3, the cobbles on stage nine and a few other challenges like Mur de Bretagne. It's a very important first phase of the Tour.

If you take the Giro & TdF as one long race it's logical that Froome would be at 100% after 3 weeks, but his performance would begin to go down after the first 10-14 days. In which case Sky have a problem with the ITT in week 3, but if Tommy D is well and truely cooked by then, Froome would have a good enough cushion not to worry.
 
Re:

Robert5091 said:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chr...nce-preparations-after-giro-ditalia-recovery/

While the team claim Froome went into the Giro deliberately undercooked in a bid to gain form as the race went on, Kerrison suggested they won't be able to afford to hit the Tour in the same way, with a team time trial, cobbles, and punchy finishes making for a complicated first week before the mountains appear in the second half.

"We definitely need to arrive at the beginning of the Tour ready to race. The first nine days are going to be very interesting this year, with the TTT on stage 3, the cobbles on stage nine and a few other challenges like Mur de Bretagne. It's a very important first phase of the Tour.

If you take the Giro & TdF as one long race it's logical that Froome would be at 100% after 3 weeks, but his performance would begin to go down after the first 10-14 days. In which case Sky have a problem with the ITT in week 3, but if Tommy D is well and truely cooked by then, Froome would have a good enough cushion not to worry.

I could be wrong but I don't see TD as Froome's (or anyone elses) biggest threat at the Tour.

If TD does turn up at the Tour in the kind of shape to threaten the podium, it will be as suspicious as anything Froome has done since 2011.
 
MartinGT said:
The biggest threat logically should be those who haven't done the Giro. But when the Dawg crushes everyone it will be because the Giro Wasn't that hard compared to other years and because they went in with this plan.

I think the Giro was bloody hard...it's just that Froome made it look easy :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Saint Unix said:
Alpe73 said:
So ... you’re more pissed that they reneged on promised uber transparency ... rather than being pissed at not releasing their data .... like most teams do/don’t?
Well, they've shown themselves willing to continuously lie about how transparent they are. To use a Sir Dave-ism, you don't lie on a Monday, but not on a Tuesday. Liars gonna lie. What else are they lying about?

The lack of transparency and unwillingness to hold themselves to the high standards they set as part of their mission statement back when the team was first founded is obviously very much related to this thread. They've shown their hypocrisy when it comes to transparency, just like they've shown similar when it comes to the zero tolerance policy and the no needle rule.

At a certain point all these broken promises get old, and them harping on about how they're keeping these promises despite the mountain of evidence that says the opposite gets annoying. Sky are both louder about their cleanliness than most teams and dirtier than most teams. It's the sort of hypocrisy they deserve to be called out on.

That's because the microphones are always shoved in their faces and the amp volume is turned up to max.

Just a suggestion...if you're convinced beyond any persuasion that Sky and all other teams are doping, and the denial of it offends you so much then cover your ears up, because you sure as hell ain't going to get an honest answer or a confession to the question just because a journalist asks repeatedly.

Enjoy the show or tune out. We've all got that choice at least

No, there is a prior cause.

The microphones are always shoved in their faces because - from inception - they have been conducting a PR masterclass which has been explicitly framed around 'the new clean cycling.' That message was always front and square, central to their brand, value and identity.

So, when that message unravels under the weight of actual evidence, the microphones come.....

And by actual evidence, I mean for example, the reasoning they gave for not joining the MPCC "Our ethical standards are higher," and the reality they practiced "We wanted to use TUES to pump Wiggins full of steroids to win the tdf."

Those sorts of gaps are what invites probing microphones.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
brownbobby said:
Saint Unix said:
Alpe73 said:
So ... you’re more pissed that they reneged on promised uber transparency ... rather than being pissed at not releasing their data .... like most teams do/don’t?
Well, they've shown themselves willing to continuously lie about how transparent they are. To use a Sir Dave-ism, you don't lie on a Monday, but not on a Tuesday. Liars gonna lie. What else are they lying about?

The lack of transparency and unwillingness to hold themselves to the high standards they set as part of their mission statement back when the team was first founded is obviously very much related to this thread. They've shown their hypocrisy when it comes to transparency, just like they've shown similar when it comes to the zero tolerance policy and the no needle rule.

At a certain point all these broken promises get old, and them harping on about how they're keeping these promises despite the mountain of evidence that says the opposite gets annoying. Sky are both louder about their cleanliness than most teams and dirtier than most teams. It's the sort of hypocrisy they deserve to be called out on.

That's because the microphones are always shoved in their faces and the amp volume is turned up to max.

Just a suggestion...if you're convinced beyond any persuasion that Sky and all other teams are doping, and the denial of it offends you so much then cover your ears up, because you sure as hell ain't going to get an honest answer or a confession to the question just because a journalist asks repeatedly.

Enjoy the show or tune out. We've all got that choice at least

No, there is a prior cause.

The microphones are always shoved in their faces because - from inception - they have been conducting a PR masterclass which has been explicitly framed around 'the new clean cycling.' That message was always front and square, central to their brand, value and identity.

So, when that message unravels under the weight of actual evidence, the microphones come.....

And by actual evidence, I mean for example, the reasoning they gave for not joining the MPCC "Our ethical standards are higher," and the reality they practiced "We wanted to use TUES to pump Wiggins full of steroids to win the tdf."

Those sorts of gaps are what invites probing microphones.

I tend to disagree; the things you list are angles from which the questions can be created...an open goal of Sky's own making if you like.

The 'reason' Sky are being questioned is much simpler...they're winning at cycling.

The first team to do so since Lance, and they've been doing it consistently for 6 years now.

No matter what Sky did/didn't say (and I'm not denying how much B.S. we've heard) the constant questioning is inevitable and won't stop until they stop winning GT's.

Yes, the attempted PR drive to pre-emptively answer the questions from the teams inception has been ham fisted, but like it or not any team dominating GT racing like Sky have was always going to have those microphones constantly in their face.

Nobody's interested in the methods or lies of average losers or infrequent winners.
 
brownbobby said:
MartinGT said:
The biggest threat logically should be those who haven't done the Giro. But when the Dawg crushes everyone it will be because the Giro Wasn't that hard compared to other years and because they went in with this plan.

I think the Giro was bloody hard...it's just that Froome made it look easy :D

Oh aye it was hard. No doubt about it. It's a GT. Even on 'easy' days they're still on their bikes, I.e no recovery.

But whilst the bots says the cynics are always looking for an excuse it also works the other way. There is an extra week between the giro and the tour. But is that really enough to get proper recovery? I don't think so especially considering that the Tour is even more intense than any other race. Everything is amplified.