Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1338 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think JosephK is just trying to stir things up again.

Some people thrive on conflict and nastiness.

The rest of us can just accept that cycling might not have changed as much as we may have hoped, and carry on just watching the races.
 
Re:

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.
 
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.

really? when was that?
 
Re: Re:

rick james 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.

really? when was that?
Give me a break
 
It pains me to support Red Flanders ( ;) ) but it is hard not to agree with his view on the AAF when you look at available information about other Salbutamol cases.

There have been loads of convictions, but the only other rider I know of who was cleared was Oscar Pereiro. Cleared in 07 for a pozzy test in 06.

Why is this important? Because Pereiro won the 06 Tour on the back of Landis testing positive for testosterone.

Of course, how would it have looked if they had taken the TdF off Landis and given it to Pereiro only to then take it off him the following year when his doping case was heard?

Not going to happen.
 
Maybe because we don’t know how many pro cyclist have had a a AAF for salbutamol, we should never have known about Froome it should have remained private.


If you have issues with only finding out about Froome via a leak then you should be asking how many have have had an AAF without us even knowing about it.....but I doubt that really bothers you
 
We can only know what we know. We know of quite a few bans, but only two clearing (Froome and Pereiro).

We know from the Amstrong case that he was tipped off about positives by the UCI and told how to make it go away (€100,000). Its not a huge leap of faith to think that nothing has changed.

Interesting that you point out that Froome's AAF should have been kept private. Yes, it should...

...but I'll remind you that the only reason Contador was banned for Clenbutarol was because the pozzy was leaked. The UCI were burying it.

Again, not a huge leap of faith to think that nothing has changed and that they were hoping to bury Froome's AAF.

There is a lot of money tied up in Froome.
 
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS