• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1358 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I really don't get the interest in, and significance of the whole 'sand shoes' saga when it comes to a discussion on Sky/Ineos 'lies'.

I mean, is it not just human nature, unless being read directly from a written script or autocue, that different people, perhaps even the same person at different times, will tell their own slightly different versions of the same story?

All of the versions presented above are just variations on the same theme presented anecdotally, no doubt embellished by some for dramatic/comedic effect

It makes for an interesting and for some amusing little tale, but there's nothing malicious in it and it tells us nothing about Sky and a propensity to lie.
 
I really don't get the interest in, and significance of the whole 'sand shoes' saga when it comes to a discussion on Sky/Ineos 'lies'.

I mean, is it not just human nature, unless being read directly from a written script or autocue, that different people, perhaps even the same person at different times, will tell their own slightly different versions of the same story?

All of the versions presented above are just variations on the same theme presented anecdotally, no doubt embellished by some for dramatic/comedic effect

It makes for an interesting and for some amusing little tale, but there's nothing malicious in it and it tells us nothing about Sky and a propensity to lie.
Ahh, c'mon Brown Bobby … the likelihood of that story is like the likelihood of you doing a one day three-peat of all roads up and down 'the big windy.' Time to wake up and smell the lavender, brutha!
 
Reactions: brownbobby
I elaborated why these were lies in the post you didn't want to read because it was too long.

This is precisely what I expected. Post something that explains stuff? "Too long, make it shorter". Post Cliff's Notes short version? "Too vague, needs more information, I can dismiss as not relevant due to lacking detail".
OK. Lets look at a factual bit that you wrote:

There are other things that aren't necessarily lies but are shown up in the fullness of time, like them telling of how the roadbook is their bible and how they achieve so much because of their thorough study of the roadbook, yet in País Vasco in 2012 they toasted all their puncheurs trying to lead out Appollonio in a sprint, failing to recognise the Alto de Garagaltza, 1km @ 9%, in the route, which led to the stage eventually being a two-up sprint between Samuel Sánchez and Joaquím Rodríguez.
Actual result of that stage can be found here: https://www.procyclingstats.com/race/itzulia-basque-country/2012/stage-5
Nordhaug @ 5s
Henao @ 10s
They finish the stage 4th and 6th on GC

So a blatent lie from you. (You have already ruled out that people may misremember events from several years ago)

You remind me of the Brexit people in my country. They pepper their rhetoric with obscure lies amidst the lengthy bluster to give their opinions legitimacy

Now, I've shown that you are a liar, how about #you show me that Sky are liars in less than 200 words.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
"Journalist David Walsh quoted Prof Peters in a 2013 book as saying if a rider got into trouble with pollen we would pull him out of the race rather than apply for a TUE on his behalf."

A confirmed lie, Froome's prednisolone at Romandie was known about before Fancy Bears.

Brief enough for you?

Really, if you can't be bothered to read all of the long post, just read the penultimate paragraph. It is my belief that to believe that Brailsford has been totally honest and innocent and well-intentioned at all times credits him with too little aptitude or professionalism to have credibly achieved what he has.
 
Last edited:
All of us can read. But the whole tone the thread is developing in is quite hilarious. Froome tends to be delivered like one of the greatest cheats in the history of sports. Let's put it straight, each of us who might've been offered to jump in a high-scale doping programme to become a starry athlete and reach money, popularity and admiration Froome got, would've agreed even without thinking about it. from my point of view, there mustn't be any question on whether froome dopes. yes, he is doped up to eyeballs. but in spite of this he is 100% entitled to stay on top and be regarded one of the great cyclists over the last 10-15 years. All these lamentations on the theme 'how a sport of cycling would've looked like had it been completely clean? I don't know how exactly, but there wouldn't have been the space for froome, etc, etc' and countless searches for justice are completely disconnected from reality. It is as stupid as believing froome might be clean. That's the sport where riders heavily dope just to be signed or extended by a team with a World Tour license LOL. Riding amongst super elite riders and flying uphill clean is completely out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: fmk_RoI
People judging others by their own low standards...
I don't think it's about 'money, popularity and admiration' per se...

But when you've been dreaming about something from a very young age, dedicating yourself to that goal at the expense of everything else (education etc), then actually having the talent and the breaks that get you within touching distance of achieving that dream.... until reality hits.

I do think Froome, perhaps naively, entered the World Tour believing he could achieve his dreams clean, its not hard to believe that from his unconventional path he wasn't aware just how intrinsic doping was to success.

At some point i guess this is the moral dilemma world class cyclists face, or at least they did up until a decade and more ago. Its not a choice driven purely by greed and a desire for fame, but more a choice of do you cross the line, do as everyone else is doing and continue to pursue what you've been working towards for most of your life.....or do you stay righteous and give up on your dreams.

Not many people are 'lucky' enough to ever be faced with this choice, but i've got to be honest, i think i'd take the less righteous option if i ever was in that position.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Not many people are 'lucky' enough to ever be faced with this choice, but i've got to be honest, i think i'd take the less righteous option if i ever was in that position.
Even in the debunked Mirkin and Goldman anecdotes - one shouldn't use the word studies in association with them, they weren't - it's generally only half the people who accept the Mephistophelean deal offered. Yet now you and @dacooley want to suggest we'd all do it, just cause you would? One more time: your standards are not everyone's standards.
 
Even in the debunked Mirkin and Goldman anecdotes - one shouldn't use the word studies in association with them, they weren't - it's generally only half the people who accept the Mephistophelean deal offered. Yet now you and @dacooley want to suggest we'd all do it, just cause you would? One more time: your standards are not everyone's standards.
Point me to the part of my post where i said 'we'd all do it'
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
All of us can read. But the whole tone the thread is developing in is quite hilarious. Froome tends to be delivered like one of the greatest cheats in the history of sports. Let's put it straight, each of us who might've been offered to jump in a high-scale doping programme to become a starry athlete and reach money, popularity and admiration Froome got, would've agreed even without thinking about it. from my point of view, there mustn't be any question on whether froome dopes. yes, he is doped up to eyeballs. but in spite of this he is 100% entitled to stay on top and be regarded one of the great cyclists over the last 10-15 years. All these lamentations on the theme 'how a sport of cycling would've looked like had it been completely clean? I don't know how exactly, but there wouldn't have been the space for froome, etc, etc' and countless searches for justice are completely disconnected from reality. It is as stupid as believing froome might be clean. That's the sport where riders heavily dope just to be signed or extended by a team with a World Tour license LOL. Riding amongst super elite riders and flying uphill clean is completely out of the question.
Maybe some put it that way. Maybe you're confusing that with people thinking he's incredibly undeserving of his current status given how utter crap he was before his transformation. Be honest, had you ever even heard of this guy before the 2011 Vuelta? Some had. Most hadn't. He was nobody. What folks react to is the absurdity of how fast, and how shocking his transformation was, and because of that, probably think he's one of the least deserving champions in the history of the sport.

Did he cheat more than everyone else? Who knows. We have no idea what combination of drugs or other cheating aids he's used. We know there have been large doses of Salbutamol and Prednisone, and I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg as they don't explain him turning from no one into a huge champion. His own team had no idea it was coming.

He's ridiculous. Biggest cheat ever? No idea. Least deserving of his status? Probably. Arguable for sure, but he's at least a contender.
 
Maybe some put it that way. Maybe you're confusing that with people thinking he's incredibly undeserving of his current status given how utter crap he was before his transformation. Be honest, had you ever even heard of this guy before the 2011 Vuelta? Some had. Most hadn't. He was nobody. What folks react to is the absurdity of how fast, and how shocking his transformation was, and because of that, probably think he's one of the least deserving champions in the history of the sport.

Did he cheat more than everyone else? Who knows. We have no idea what combination of drugs or other cheating aids he's used. We know there have been large doses of Salbutamol and Prednisone, and I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg as they don't explain him turning from no one into a huge champion. His own team had no idea it was coming.

He's ridiculous. Biggest cheat ever? No idea. Least deserving of his status? Probably. Arguable for sure, but he's at least a contender.
yes, I might be easily conflating those types of posters as transmitting thoughts in the foreign language is quite challenging for me and I have to do my best to be clear enough to be understood. sorry about that. rather, i disagree with this kind of dominant mindset which claims if one was a crap until 20-22-25, one has nothing left but remain crap, settling for a role of abysmal breakaway specialist or some random guy eating the wind during unending pancake flat stages. that kind of vision leaves no chance for developing. it's like unless you won a genetic lottery at birth or lottery of chance during very young professional years, you've got to suck in your sport all the way through. it is doubly erroneous to think like that given the environment froome had to grow as a bike rider. take a look at the photos thehog and other members of the whistle-blower club love to post. obviously the dawg from 2008-2009 was about 8-12 kg heavier than superlean froome from 2012 to date. it is absolutely clear to me, that before 2011 froome had been treated completely incorrectly in terms of training and keeping weight methods as well as doping program. and that's where all pretty much neutral posters as MI, DFA123 and others would agree with me. other than that, he obviously had some disease hampering his performance before that memorable vuelta. the astma and badzilla stories froome and sky made up hastily are utterly inconsistent and don't stand a water. But overall I'm saying to froome 'yes', as I don't understand why cycling should be fair whereas the whole life is full in injustice with millions of people cheating, tricking and lying to each other in order to succeed. froome is no different. neither any other big rider is. what's the use of not trusting froome at all and at the same time let's say considering quintana completely believable? who knows perhaps prior 2011 froome might've been the laziest rider performing in a team with continental lisense or badzilla made him suffer so much that he could hardly survive in the peloton on uneventful flat stages. who knows possibly quintana is having difficulties with discipline or motivation which causes the performance drop-off at this point. we know very little, but we are acting like we know almost everything. passionate cheering agains froome is what I probably find the most funny-looking. each of us can easily fancy what amount of doping effort beating the thermonuclear froome takes. :) we got way too obsessed with explaining by doping all the performances we are not satistied with. that's a real issue.

and yet looking back at the way discussion folded, I assume many fans have too romantic view at what being a talented cyclist is, since all the necessary reference points come down to natural ability. meanwhile 'talent' is a very difficult of interweaving abilities covering natural ability, discipline, willpower, determination, luck of turning up where needed and when needed and even ability to respond to using doping properly. the greatest ones were constantly ahead of others on many points, including doping. that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of almost certain ridicule by some for even mentioning the following guys in relation to Froome pre 2011....but recent talk of talent shining through as a sign of a cleaner sport gets me wondering....would evenepoel, Van Der Poel, Bernal etc have been able to make the same impacts we’ve seen them making this year if they were just entering the World Tour and attempting to do it clean in the days of a still heavily and almost universally doped sport...say around 2008ish?
 
Reactions: dacooley
yes, I might be easily conflating those types of posters as transmitting thoughts in the foreign language is quite challenging for me and I have to do my best to be clear enough to be understood. sorry about that. rather, i disagree with this kind of dominant mindset which claims if one was a crap until 20-22-25, one has nothing left but remain crap, settling for a role of abysmal breakaway specialist or some random guy eating the wind during unending pancake flat stages. that kind of vision leaves no chance for developing. it's like unless you won a genetic lottery at birth or lottery of chance during very young professional years, you've got to suck in your sport all the way through. it is doubly erroneous to think like that given the environment froome had to grow as a bike rider. take a look at the photos thehog and other members of the whistle-blower club love to post. obviously the dawg from 2008-2009 was about 8-12 kg heavier than superlean froome from 2012 to date. it is absolutely clear to me, that before 2011 froome had been treated completely incorrectly in terms of training and keeping weight methods as well as doping program. and that's where all pretty much neutral posters as MI, DFA123 and others would agree with me. other than that, he obviously had some disease hampering his performance before that memorable vuelta. the astma and badzilla stories froome and sky made up hastily are utterly inconsistent and don't stand a water. But overall I'm saying to froome 'yes', as I don't understand why cycling should be fair whereas the whole life is full in injustice with millions of people cheating, tricking and lying to each other in order to succeed. froome is no different. neither any other big rider is. what's the use of not trusting froome at all and at the same time let's say considering quintana completely believable? who knows perhaps prior 2011 froome might've been the laziest rider performing in a team with continental lisense or badzilla made him suffer so much that he could hardly survive in the peloton on uneventful flat stages. who knows possibly quintana is having difficulties with discipline or motivation which causes the performance drop-off at this point. we know very little, but we are acting like we know almost everything. passionate cheering agains froome is what I probably find the most funny-looking. each of us can easily fancy what amount of doping effort beating the thermonuclear froome takes. :) we got way too obsessed with explaining by doping all the performances we are not satistied with. that's a real issue.

and yet looking back at the way discussion folded, I assume many fans have too romantic view at what being a talented cyclist is, since all the necessary reference points come down to natural ability. meanwhile 'talent' is a very difficult of interweaving abilities covering natural ability, discipline, willpower, determination, luck of turning up where needed and when needed and even ability to respond to using doping properly. the greatest ones were constantly ahead of others on many points, including doping. that's for sure.
It's entirely reasonable to say that Froome had better training and fitness at Sky than he did at Barloworld. But this is the old "just lost the weight" and "better training" argument, that entirely fails to explain the absolutely dramatic and unbelievable change in this rider. I think it's reasonable to assume that if Froome had just trained better and lost weight that he'd maybe have won a few small races and someone would have heard of him. For him to transform into the dominant GT rider of his generation is just too much. It's absurd.

Froome's change is explained by doping. You don't need to make that seem like a slippery slope where all great performances are explained by doping. I agree that's overused, but that fact doesn't change a thing about the situation around Froome.
 
Reactions: Grrr
It's entirely reasonable to say that Froome had better training and fitness at Sky than he did at Barloworld. But this is the old "just lost the weight" and "better training" argument, that entirely fails to explain the absolutely dramatic and unbelievable change in this rider. I think it's reasonable to assume that if Froome had just trained better and lost weight that he'd maybe have won a few small races and someone would have heard of him. For him to transform into the dominant GT rider of his generation is just too much. It's absurd.

Froome's change is explained by doping. You don't need to make that seem like a slippery slope where all great performances are explained by doping. I agree that's overused, but that fact doesn't change a thing about the situation around Froome.
for sure his transformation is explained by doping. there is no doubt. the thing is that any big athelete kinda should deserve getting connected to high-scale doping program. naturally, froome has been heavily using doping since 2012, but exactly capacity he showed in the 2011 vuelta became his ticket to the world of high-octane doping. it's not like all the other big guns use some basic stuff while froome is massively stuffed with the most thermonuclear doping cocktail ever. though, that's clearly the way most people think, getting wild from froome succeeding. i can accept the program he sticks to may be the most powerful and efficient, though. i tend to believe he was relatively clean before the 2011 vuelta / 2012 season. of course, there is a certain set of drugs any WT level cyclist injected / injects, but all in all there was anything remotely close to what real grand tour specialists had used. the 2011 vuelta mystery will never be guessed I believe. anyway, i would bet on froome having used some new - for that time - EPO modification. I don't think launching a massive transfusion program was possible for the rider without money, ambitions and doping connections. nonetheless, it's not like a horse dose of EPO makes a grand tour beater from any Sky C team rolleur. it doesn't work like that. besides, back then froome was obviously still overweight. Seems to me, he dropped about 4-5 kg between the Vuelta and the 2012 Tour. What is quite clear to me is he really had some illness that restrained him before 2011. most likely, that's what enabled him to get some important tue's to progress that much.
 
Froome is now riding on a bike, not a trainer. He completed two laps at a velodrome.

This is what, about ten weeks after the crash, in which he broke his femur? Is there any precedent for this? Anyone out there have a similar injury? How long before Beloki got back on a bike?

Maybe he wanted to convince himself--and the competition--that he's recovering ahead of schedule, but at what I would assume is still a tender stage, wouldn't it be inadvisable to get on a bike at this point? His leg is surely weakened, and if he fell he could re-aggravate the condition.
 
All of us can read. But the whole tone the thread is developing in is quite hilarious. Froome tends to be delivered like one of the greatest cheats in the history of sports. Let's put it straight, each of us who might've been offered to jump in a high-scale doping programme to become a starry athlete and reach money, popularity and admiration Froome got, would've agreed even without thinking about it. from my point of view, there mustn't be any question on whether froome dopes. yes, he is doped up to eyeballs. but in spite of this he is 100% entitled to stay on top and be regarded one of the great cyclists over the last 10-15 years. All these lamentations on the theme 'how a sport of cycling would've looked like had it been completely clean? I don't know how exactly, but there wouldn't have been the space for froome, etc, etc' and countless searches for justice are completely disconnected from reality. It is as stupid as believing froome might be clean. That's the sport where riders heavily dope just to be signed or extended by a team with a World Tour license LOL. Riding amongst super elite riders and flying uphill clean is completely out of the question.
A lot of people would probably feel really different if Froome wasn't both the most obvious case and stuffed down our throats like a clean champion. Riding for Skineos hasn't done him any favors either.
 
Froome is now riding on a bike, not a trainer. He completed two laps at a velodrome.

This is what, about ten weeks after the crash, in which he broke his femur? Is there any precedent for this? Anyone out there have a similar injury? How long before Beloki got back on a bike?

Maybe he wanted to convince himself--and the competition--that he's recovering ahead of schedule, but at what I would assume is still a tender stage, wouldn't it be inadvisable to get on a bike at this point? His leg is surely weakened, and if he fell he could re-aggravate the condition.
I broke my femur on Sept 1st 2016. I rode rollers end of November and MTB Dec 2nd.
with his fitness before the crash and the rehab team and facilities a WT team can provide, 2 months and a half are fine to have a few laps of a velodrome I think
 
A lot of people would probably feel really different if Froome wasn't both the most obvious case and stuffed down our throats like a clean champion. Riding for Skineos hasn't done him any favors either.
So which cheat would you prefer?

Unless you think Froome is cheating an entirely clean peloton then you are just playing a massive game of cognitive dissonance.

So, you'd prefer a cheat who cheated right from the start, and so had the palmares of a lifelong cheat rather than a cheat who just took to cheating late in his career, and youd prefer a cheating team who just keep quiet about their cheating, and prefer to keep their heads down.

It all amounts to the same thing, unless it's a question of disliking Sky/Ineos because their cheating is too overt and makes it hard for you to pretend to yourself than the sport is fair.

Valverde is World Champion, at 39. Think about that.
 
So which cheat would you prefer?

Unless you think Froome is cheating an entirely clean peloton then you are just playing a massive game of cognitive dissonance.

So, you'd prefer a cheat who cheated right from the start, and so had the palmares of a lifelong cheat rather than a cheat who just took to cheating late in his career, and youd prefer a cheating team who just keep quiet about their cheating, and prefer to keep their heads down.

It all amounts to the same thing, unless it's a question of disliking Sky/Ineos because their cheating is too overt and makes it hard for you to pretend to yourself than the sport is fair.

Valverde is World Champion, at 39. Think about that.
Froome got off on a drug where dozens of others got banned for. And that's just one thing in a looooong line of things.

Froome finishes a GT in 2nd but is later awarded a victory even though the winner did not test positive for a controlled substance. Contador wins a Grand Tour, doesn't test positive, and later loses that victory.

How can I pretend it's fair?

I don't like Valverde, and I don't pretend he's a good guy in this. But at least he did the time and at least the pretense of cleeaanz is gone.
 
Reactions: LaFlorecita

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS