Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1301 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
The Hegelian said:
I know there's much that is inconsistent about this comparison, but it has to be deployed: this reminds me so much of Armstrong's positive test that was 'made to go away' with a backdated TUE and 'generous donation.'

The common denominator is: money, power and brand value.
I thought the generous donation was after the Tour De Suisse EPO (slight) positive ...
Nope - pretty sure it was a positive for a steroid, which they then (post-positive) claimed was for a saddle sore and submitted a backdated TUE. This was accepted with the donation.

Not sure if it was Suisse or the Dauphine.

I'm not one for out and out conspiracies, but I am certain that there is no sphere of pure justice transcendent of the spheres of political and financial power and the vested interests connected with maintaining those things. In the case of Armstrong, part of his genius was fully understanding that his interests intersected with more general UCI interests(i.e. the globalisation of the sport, massive increases in US attention and therefore revenue etc). He fully exploited that, and that little TUE perfectly encapsulates it.

In the case of Froome, one needs to consider not only the (economic/political) cost of a ban on Sky/Froome as a brand/UK cycling in particular, but also pro-cycling per se or generally - in an era of super competitive global sport. Cycling as a whole can't really afford for its main GT champion to be tarnished with a doping ban. Period.

So as Derrida puts it, reason is the reason of the strongest.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
TheSpud said:
I dont know why people find these kind of stats hard to believe - he's at the top of his sports ffs!
And what kind of sport. The crystal clear purity is there for all to see, indeed all history and facts would suggest that Froome lives on peanut butter and salads.

It's not as if everyone who put out this power has been proven to be a doper, has dope doctor connections or is extremely suspect of those. You would almost think that most GT winners have been proven to be dopers. Truly unbelievable :rolleyes:

rick james said:
because he was ill...but you'll tell us that's all lies....so what the point
Yes, it's amazing people do not buy this heart wrenching story of sickness holding a true champion back who then after a recovery shows his true grit. This is a fantastic story of human perseverance of which we never saw before in cycling. :Neutral:
 
what truth do you expect to read from a team obsessed with wrecking the field in any gt, guys? damn, it is so naïve. on the other hand, never saw any data published by other multiple gt winners.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
TheSpud said:
The Hegelian said:
I know there's much that is inconsistent about this comparison, but it has to be deployed: this reminds me so much of Armstrong's positive test that was 'made to go away' with a backdated TUE and 'generous donation.'

The common denominator is: money, power and brand value.
I thought the generous donation was after the Tour De Suisse EPO (slight) positive ...
Nope - pretty sure it was a positive for a steroid, which they then (post-positive) claimed was for a saddle sore and submitted a backdated TUE. This was accepted with the donation.

Not sure if it was Suisse or the Dauphine.

I'm not one for out and out conspiracies, but I am certain that there is no sphere of pure justice transcendent of the spheres of political and financial power and the vested interests connected with maintaining those things. In the case of Armstrong, part of his genius was fully understanding that his interests intersected with more general UCI interests(i.e. the globalisation of the sport, massive increases in US attention and therefore revenue etc). He fully exploited that, and that little TUE perfectly encapsulates it.

In the case of Froome, one needs to consider not only the (economic/political) cost of a ban on Sky/Froome as a brand/UK cycling in particular, but also pro-cycling per se or generally - in an era of super competitive global sport. Cycling as a whole can't really afford for its main GT champion to be tarnished with a doping ban. Period.

So as Derrida puts it, reason is the reason of the strongest.
I don't think this is the case. UCI (Lappartient) wanted Froome to be banned, and he wanted it badly. On the other hand WADA (Reedie) didn't want that, backed up with Sky empire. You saw who won :(
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
bigcog said:
hazaran said:
I love that they keep including the heartrate. It's like a honeypot for weeding out the idiots who know nothing about sports science - "his HR is so low!" is just the perfect way to demonstrate you have zero clue.
LOL, you were all complaining about them not releasing heart rate figures when the infamous power video from the vuelta came out, now your criticising them for releasing it ? There is no pleasing you :lol:
It's a game with no end, one you simply cannot lose....talk to the media, it's PR bull, avoid the media, there's something to hide. Say something, it's a lie. Say nothing, it's a cover up, lack of transparency...withold the data, there's something to hide. Release the data, it's been manipulated.

The merry go round never stops turning :cool:
This. Great summary of the final 3 days.
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
Except of course the 397 number doesn't come from Sky but Velon....And as a number for a 3km stretch, implying that it includes the attack, but without actually showing where exactly this 3 km stretch was. Sky says 401 for 24 minutes after the attack. So this big smoking gun of a lie you've just uncovered....Hmm, not much really. Try again?

In the end 3/4 of you come accross as paid Sky defenders, who throw as much nonsense as pssible at Froome so that every sane person reading through this comes to the conclusion that there's absolutely nothing suspicious about Froome, just a bunch of conspiracy theorists desperate to find something and throwing ridiculous accusation at him. Congrats on the job, hope pays well, if you're not paid, maybe time to get back to reality and look at the stuff that IS suspicious about Froome and Sky?
 
Aug 20, 2017
1,397
0
0
Re:

The fridge in the blue trees said:
Except of course the 397 number doesn't come from Sky but Velon....And as a number for a 3km stretch, implying that it includes the attack, but without actually showing where exactly this 3 km stretch was. Sky says 401 for 24 minutes after the attack. So this big smoking gun of a lie you've just uncovered....Hmm, not much really. Try again?

In the end 3/4 of you come accross as paid Sky defenders, who throw as much nonsense as pssible at Froome so that every sane person reading through this comes to the conclusion that there's absolutely nothing suspicious about Froome, just a bunch of conspiracy theorists desperate to find something and throwing ridiculous accusation at him. Congrats on the job, hope pays well, if you're not paid, maybe time to get back to reality and look at the stuff that IS suspicious about Froome and Sky?
Yes
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
The claims that Froome is some kind of perfect athlete dont stand up as why was he in the grupetto and at the back of it before 2011!!!
because he was ill...but you'll tell us that's all lies....so what the point
Not even Froome's official version (or any of the 17 official versions there have been up to this point) posit that he was ill all those seasons where he didn't do much.
 
Re:

topcat said:
Forget about the giro data. That's just Sky trying to get ppl to talk about something other than the way sky bought their way out of the aaf.
LRP agrees:

Team Sky gave the BBC access to a series of documents and data that apparently revealed how Froome lost weight during the first part of the Giro d’Italia, the calories he consumed and his power output on key stages, including his victories ride over the Colle delle Finestre when he took the pink jersey. The data was published two days after WADA dropped their investigation into Froome’s Adverse Analytical Finding for salbutamol

“I think it’s fake news,” Porte said dismissively.
 
So CF is not a convicted doper yet although he has been further discredited. Under Cookson he didn't have to worry about testing positive. Under Lappy it's more difficult but workable so far. I think he'll be brought down eventually but maybe not till after he takes another couple of gts
 
Re:

topcat said:
So CF is not a convicted doper yet although he has been further discredited. Under Cookson he didn't have to worry about testing positive. Under Lappy it's more difficult but workable so far. I think he'll be brought down eventually but maybe not till after he takes another couple of gts
Correct, now he has to go via WADA and Reddie to get off from a postive. One extra step in the process :cool:
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
TheSpud said:
The Hegelian said:
I know there's much that is inconsistent about this comparison, but it has to be deployed: this reminds me so much of Armstrong's positive test that was 'made to go away' with a backdated TUE and 'generous donation.'

The common denominator is: money, power and brand value.
I thought the generous donation was after the Tour De Suisse EPO (slight) positive ...
Nope - pretty sure it was a positive for a steroid, which they then (post-positive) claimed was for a saddle sore and submitted a backdated TUE. This was accepted with the donation.

Not sure if it was Suisse or the Dauphine.

I'm not one for out and out conspiracies, but I am certain that there is no sphere of pure justice transcendent of the spheres of political and financial power and the vested interests connected with maintaining those things. In the case of Armstrong, part of his genius was fully understanding that his interests intersected with more general UCI interests(i.e. the globalisation of the sport, massive increases in US attention and therefore revenue etc). He fully exploited that, and that little TUE perfectly encapsulates it.

In the case of Froome, one needs to consider not only the (economic/political) cost of a ban on Sky/Froome as a brand/UK cycling in particular, but also pro-cycling per se or generally - in an era of super competitive global sport. Cycling as a whole can't really afford for its main GT champion to be tarnished with a doping ban. Period.

So as Derrida puts it, reason is the reason of the strongest.
No, the donation came after the TDS variable postive, which with the older EPO test was like Froome’s Salbutamol positive.

Pat McQuaid, the president of the UCI, has admitted that it was a mistake in hindsight for cycling's governing body to accept a $100,000 (£69,000) donation from Lance Armstrong eight years ago.

The money was used to purchase a Sysmex machine in 2002, a piece of equipment used to analyse blood samples, although the governing body denied any suggestion that the seven-times Tour de France winner used this in an attempt to bribe the UCI, as has been claimed by Floyd Landis.

"To the best of my knowledge, the UCI has not accepted other donations and I'd just like to clarify that there was only one donation from Lance Armstrong not two or three," McQuaid said. "You have to consider that at the time, in 2002, no accusations against Lance Armstrong had been made. They've all came up since then. We accepted the donation to help develop the sport. We didn't think there's a conflict of interest. It's easy to say in hindsight what could or would have been done. You have to put yourself in the situation at the time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS