Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1330 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough the thread slowly died down. seemingly even the most vitriol sceptic had nothing left but accept that froome is on top of GT pyramid with good reason. :)
Assuming this means you think a guy who got caught doping (but covered up by the UCI) is clean, I would hope you're kidding. Good one.

Other explanation is that people are dejected and realize the UCI won't do anything about this guy. Thinking he's clean would be delusional at this point. Sorry, scratch that. Delusional at any point since the 2011 Vuelta.
Yeah that just about sums it up.
It's sufficiently depressing that even thehog/digger etc hardly ever bother turning up here any more.
Lance was more vulnerable and more fun.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough the thread slowly died down. seemingly even the most vitriol sceptic had nothing left but accept that froome is on top of GT pyramid with good reason. :)
Assuming this means you think a guy who got caught doping (but covered up by the UCI) is clean, I would hope you're kidding. Good one.

Other explanation is that people are dejected and realize the UCI won't do anything about this guy. Thinking he's clean would be delusional at this point. Sorry, scratch that. Delusional at any point since the 2011 Vuelta.
Absolutely not. Frankly I can hardly imagine a fan who got interested in cycling prior 2011-2012 and still considers a possibility of froome riding clean / relatively clean. my point is that attributing 100% of froome's success to doping is stupid and pointless. from my point of view his determination, complete ruthlessness to himself and opponents and incredible consistency over 8 consecutive seasons indicate that he's where he deserves to be
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
red_flanders said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough the thread slowly died down. seemingly even the most vitriol sceptic had nothing left but accept that froome is on top of GT pyramid with good reason. :)
Assuming this means you think a guy who got caught doping (but covered up by the UCI) is clean, I would hope you're kidding. Good one.

Other explanation is that people are dejected and realize the UCI won't do anything about this guy. Thinking he's clean would be delusional at this point. Sorry, scratch that. Delusional at any point since the 2011 Vuelta.
Absolutely not. Frankly I can hardly imagine a fan who got interested in cycling prior 2011-2012 and still considers a possibility of froome riding clean / relatively clean. my point is that attributing 100% of froome's success to doping is stupid and pointless. from my point of view his determination, complete ruthlessness to himself and opponents and incredible consistency over 8 consecutive seasons indicate that he's where he deserves to be
Yeah, right on. It's a lot easier to be ruthless and determined when you and your team are all doped up and know the UCI has your back
 
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
dacooley said:
red_flanders said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough the thread slowly died down. seemingly even the most vitriol sceptic had nothing left but accept that froome is on top of GT pyramid with good reason. :)
Assuming this means you think a guy who got caught doping (but covered up by the UCI) is clean, I would hope you're kidding. Good one.

Other explanation is that people are dejected and realize the UCI won't do anything about this guy. Thinking he's clean would be delusional at this point. Sorry, scratch that. Delusional at any point since the 2011 Vuelta.
Absolutely not. Frankly I can hardly imagine a fan who got interested in cycling prior 2011-2012 and still considers a possibility of froome riding clean / relatively clean. my point is that attributing 100% of froome's success to doping is stupid and pointless. from my point of view his determination, complete ruthlessness to himself and opponents and incredible consistency over 8 consecutive seasons indicate that he's where he deserves to be
Yeah, right on. It's a lot easier to be ruthless and determined when you and your team are all doped up and know the UCI has your back
the stronger always benefit their previleges and make things harder for the weaker and life is unfair in its nature. this is natural selection.
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
red_flanders said:
dacooley said:
oddly enough the thread slowly died down. seemingly even the most vitriol sceptic had nothing left but accept that froome is on top of GT pyramid with good reason. :)
Assuming this means you think a guy who got caught doping (but covered up by the UCI) is clean, I would hope you're kidding. Good one.

Other explanation is that people are dejected and realize the UCI won't do anything about this guy. Thinking he's clean would be delusional at this point. Sorry, scratch that. Delusional at any point since the 2011 Vuelta.
Absolutely not. Frankly I can hardly imagine a fan who got interested in cycling prior 2011-2012 and still considers a possibility of froome riding clean / relatively clean. my point is that attributing 100% of froome's success to doping is stupid and pointless. from my point of view his determination, complete ruthlessness to himself and opponents and incredible consistency over 8 consecutive seasons indicate that he's where he deserves to be
and the....er....... 5 before :D
mind you....that anatomic jock strap did not win itself I suppose.... ;)
 
Sep 11, 2017
19
0
0
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
 
Re:

theracingelf said:
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
Nailed it.
 
Re:

theracingelf said:
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
 
Re: Re:

wansteadimp said:
theracingelf said:
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
"One of the biggest cheats" could certainly mean "One who has reaped the most rewards from cheating". As for the doping, the positive is obvious proof, and there's a mountain of evidence which no one has the time or inclination to rehash at this point. "One of the biggest cheats" could also mean "One of the most obvious frauds" in cycling, which while subjective, has plenty of evidence behind it.

Why is it that when the obvious is stated flatly, someone always comes banging for proof? This isn't a court, it's an opinion on a forum. There's more than enough evidence to form an opinion about this clown, and in this case, also ample proof.
 
Well you are right, it is just an opinion. It isnt a fact nor is it in any way anywhere near proven. He was cleared of the AAF, sorry. You may have an opinion about the process of clearing him, but in the absence of real inside knowledge it is an uninformed opinion.

Nevertheless, I happen to share your opinion as it happens about the general likelihood of Froome being totally dope free. I dont actually place much importance on the Sal aaf. Its nothing. Salbutamol cannot account for his change as a rider from the Spring to the Autumn of 2011. I dont know what he is doing....not a clue, but I believe he is doing something.

Anyway, bilharzia for the win :lol:
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well you are right, it is just an opinion. It isnt a fact nor is it in any way anywhere near proven. He was cleared of the AAF, sorry. You may have an opinion about the process of clearing him, but in the absence of real inside knowledge it is an uninformed opinion.

Nevertheless, I happen to share your opinion as it happens about the general likelihood of Froome being totally dope free. I dont actually place much importance on the Sal aaf. Its nothing. Salbutamol cannot account for his change as a rider from the Spring to the Autumn of 2011. I dont know what he is doing....not a clue, but I believe he is doing something.

Anyway, bilharzia for the win :lol:

what you talking about you mad raj, that asthma treatment is more potent than EPO...get with the script
 
The idea that the thing we know he got popped with is the only thing he's been doing is...well, let's say it's one I don't subscribe to. He was bound to get popped for one thing or another along the way. How many other positives have been suppressed that we don't know about? He tested positive, flat out, plain and simple. That the UCI buried it has no bearing on the fact that he turned a positive. It simply points to the UCI's continued corruption, doubling the offense.

The team and the rider are as obviously doping as anyone in the history of the sport.
 
Re:

theracingelf said:
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
You can think what you think.
UCI is corrupt for everyone, not just one team. They have protected riders, and always will.
How you conclude he's the biggest cheats is beyond me.
 
Re:

theracingelf said:
Well for me he has been caught, the AAF for me confirmed what I always thought, that he's a cheat. Unfortunalty the UCI is apperently still as corrupt as it was back in the day and let him get away with it... There is no point in commenting on this thread any longer, what's the point of getting upset about one of the biggest cheats in cycling when the UCI is letting him do his thing..?
Except he isn’t a cheat as he was Cleared.. lol
 
Re: Re:

wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
the narrative soaring in the air in the length of the whole thread IS froome would've been a total blank if cycling was a really clean sport. ;) and it baffles me as well as it's completely irrelevant what might have happened in clean cycling. that's a sport we will never see. :)
 
Re:

macbindle said:
Well you are right, it is just an opinion. It isnt a fact nor is it in any way anywhere near proven. He was cleared of the AAF, sorry. You may have an opinion about the process of clearing him, but in the absence of real inside knowledge it is an uninformed opinion.

Nevertheless, I happen to share your opinion as it happens about the general likelihood of Froome being totally dope free. I dont actually place much importance on the Sal aaf. Its nothing. Salbutamol cannot account for his change as a rider from the Spring to the Autumn of 2011. I dont know what he is doing....not a clue, but I believe he is doing something.

Anyway, bilharzia for the win :lol:
Always!
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
The point is to argue that he's not a fraud. It's a very common psychological reaction, even among the dopers themselves.
 
Re: Re:

spalco said:
wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
spalco said:
wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
they are generally one and the same...I think the issue with Froome is that its the differecne between the results/reward from a (assumed) pre-doping to doping. Previously he was good enough to win the anatomic jock, get a pro contract and then be 'good enough' to be judged the worst rider on the team and about to go back to life outside the pro ranks or perhaps a gig on the asian or american scene. Then...kapow!!! Other riders, who again are most probably on the juice, the delta (I think that might be the term) is far smaller...they were always more than capable of the anatomic jock....even Wiggins had the grace to knock in some olympic medals.....
How do you know the delta?
How do you know what the athletes natural abilities are?
Wiggins got his medals doped up? Right?

So what's the logic here? You comparing an apparent fully Natty Froome to young European talent doping since they were 15?
Got it! :lol:

Honestly we will never know the real capabilities of any athlete. The only thing that matters is: 1. Motivation to put in the hard yards
2. Natural ability to respond to drugs
Froome is World No. 1 at that. This has been true for quite a while.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
spalco said:
wansteadimp said:
And the proof for him being one of the biggest cheats in cycling? As opposed to one of the most successful cheats in cycling.
What's the difference exactly?

This argument has baffled me for years. "Sure he's a cheat, but he's not cheating more than others", "Yeah he was tested positive on substance XY, but he didn't inject speedballs during the race", "He's doping but he would've been the fastest if everyone was clean too".

What's the point here? Maybe a bank robber isn't as bad as a murderer, but both should go to prison.
The point is to argue that he's not a fraud. It's a very common psychological reaction, even among the dopers themselves.
Thanks for telling me what i think. Unfortunately for you, I think he is obviously a fraud.

Why is he the biggest fraud though? Results alone? Are his results even better than the other top guys?

What is he doing different to every one else? Did he get the best advice on his programme at an earlier or later age than everyone else?

He's a blatant cheat but why is he any different to Valverde or Nibali?
 
the implication is that both valverde and nibali demonstrated immense talent in their early years while froome was nowhere getting away from rhinos and discovering kenyan wilderness. most fans just don't want to see unthinkable froome-like breakthroughs which cause indignation. although, as far as using doping itself is concerned, froome is as a fraud as nibali or valverde. degree of doping influence on performance gets considered way bigger when it comes to froome. that's it.
 
Re:

dacooley said:
the implication is that both valverde and nibali demonstrated immense talent in their early years while froome was nowhere getting away from rhinos and discovering kenyan wilderness. most fans just don't want to see unthinkable froome-like breakthroughs which cause indignation. although, as far as using doping itself is concerned, froome is as a fraud as nibali or valverde. degree of doping influence on performance gets considered way bigger when it comes to froome. that's it.
It's no secret that Italy, Spain and France are the dope capitals when it comes to putting kids on dope.
To say they were talented at young age is myopic at best.
Was Valverde clean at 20? Nibali or Contador? Meh..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS