-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
acoggan said:
Don't think we have forgotten you and your posse in RBR who always found a reason for every performance to be natural.
BroDeal said:
They were the worst. Every one of them. Every single ridiculous performance could be "explained".
acoggan said:
Interesting comment about the referenced authors. I don't know if I would agree with that piece.
Sounds like Hunter's getting all p*ssy about something?
acoggan said:
Solid response right there.
Anybody wants to see the quality of Andrew Coggan can have a looksy at Slowtwitch circa 2006.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_printable;post=877642;
Still wondering about that "evidence" Coggan?
sprenten said:
At this level, if a GT is won on a Cat 1 climb and 33 km TT with a margin of around 4 minutes over #2, I highly doubt it is clean.
At this juncture, Froome no longer has to full genius a thing. He simply needs to match and perhaps eek out slightly better times than others.
The final TT will be interesting ... I expect he will still smoke it.
Moose McKnuckles said:
That reminded me why I never joined that cesspool, thanks.
RBR was bad enough. It's own version of Slowman.
Moose McKnuckles said:
Yea, Coggan is who he was for sure. The doosh is strong with this one.
But what is even more glaring is the dooshiness of Empfield in that set of exchanges. What a total cesspool of idiocy Slowditch is and was.
How to Beat Froome - You Can Help
Here's three practical things that can be done to deal with Froome and Sky's blatant cheating:
1. The Media can choose to simply scrub Froome from all reporting. Simple, just redact him from stage and GC reports. Just don't mention him. Don't televise his ITT and instruct the cameras to minimise filming of him and focus on other riders.
2. The Fans can do what the French farmers do from time to time and blockage a stage. Refuse to let the peloton through until Froome withdraws from the race. That's a CALL TO ACTION for all of you following the Tour on location. Nothing illegal, mind you, keep it peaceful and lawful.
3. The Riders can refuse to ride with Froome. Let the start gun go and just go back to the team buses for an hour or two. letting Froome and his cheating team go up the road and "win" by an hour. Then the real race can be had. We know a bunch of Pros read these forums - time to man up!
And, before you the Lance FanBois who have now jumped on the "Froome is Clean" delusion bus say "but all the others are cheating", have a look at the La Gazetta data and then form an objective view. Maybe they're cheating too, but not anywhere near Froome mutant power outputs that make it an Indurain-style one man show. That's the price Froome has to pay for going full genius.
Here's three practical things that can be done to deal with Froome and Sky's blatant cheating:
1. The Media can choose to simply scrub Froome from all reporting. Simple, just redact him from stage and GC reports. Just don't mention him. Don't televise his ITT and instruct the cameras to minimise filming of him and focus on other riders.
2. The Fans can do what the French farmers do from time to time and blockage a stage. Refuse to let the peloton through until Froome withdraws from the race. That's a CALL TO ACTION for all of you following the Tour on location. Nothing illegal, mind you, keep it peaceful and lawful.
3. The Riders can refuse to ride with Froome. Let the start gun go and just go back to the team buses for an hour or two. letting Froome and his cheating team go up the road and "win" by an hour. Then the real race can be had. We know a bunch of Pros read these forums - time to man up!
And, before you the Lance FanBois who have now jumped on the "Froome is Clean" delusion bus say "but all the others are cheating", have a look at the La Gazetta data and then form an objective view. Maybe they're cheating too, but not anywhere near Froome mutant power outputs that make it an Indurain-style one man show. That's the price Froome has to pay for going full genius.
acoggan said:
And yet you still seem to eff it up when you come to a conclusion. Just keep saying nobody is doping and acting surprised when some are caught, that is the company line. UCI, USAC, pro teams, doctors, licensed coaches, funny they almost all seem to have the exact same approach to it all. Don't want to cut into profits any, huh?
Moose McKnuckles said:
First - interesting. AC looks to keep the blinders on till they fall off.
Second - slowman. Wow. What a doooooooooosh bag. Nice comparison - letter to the editor saying you're a pedophile is the same as calling someone with suspicious performances a doper on a niche cycling forum.
BigBoat said:
That line is already trotted out by most Sky regulars here. Note most of them already repeat "I never said Froome was clean... BUT! So they allready decided for themselves Froome is probably dirty. Sadly for someof them it shows their utterly empty stance on doping. More or less they condone doping.
argyllflyer said:
I'll shock you, but Riders and mechanics usually know jack-**** about aerodynamics and gear. They know how to ride hard and how to maintain a bike in 30 minutes (and do that for twenty bikes without screwing up).
So whatever Rob Hayles said is nice and all that , but he was a rider, not an expert in aerodynmics. He also has never built a composite mold. He knows more about track racing than most of us... but that doesn't make him an expert on TT bikes.
I won't say I'm an expert, but I do know quite a bit about this stuff, about the sourcing and about the strategies behind it all. It's because I have the time for this nonsense instead of having to ride hard and maintain a bike. I'm a bit of a bike spotter
None of that is very likely, and how can 'we', the average CN poster, help with any of it?
The only way Froome won't win the Tour is if he crashes or falls sick. Another far-fetched way would be an alliance between Saxo, Movistar and Belkin, but that would hinge on Contador, Valverde and Mollema not caring who among the three of them win as long as Froome doesn't, which won't happen either.
The only way Froome won't win the Tour is if he crashes or falls sick. Another far-fetched way would be an alliance between Saxo, Movistar and Belkin, but that would hinge on Contador, Valverde and Mollema not caring who among the three of them win as long as Froome doesn't, which won't happen either.
Logic Al said:
It's because it's all a huge red herring.
If anything, I'd bet it's good ole blood manipulation. Because contrary to what the public thinks, that's still undetectable.
I can't repeat that enough: Blood doping is still undetectable.
Now onto the "why did AC stop/tone it down"?
AC has been warned. The powers at be took a nonsensical charge and slapped AC with it. I have no doubt he doped, but Clenbuterol really is likely either food or supplement contamination (further research is only reinforcing this). But they knew he was becoming a liability, so they took what they had and knocked him out with it.
And to turn this one around: Do you really believe everyone is clean? Probably not (your posts certainly indicate a certain pragmatism and reality). So if the field isn't squeaky clean, how come someone is destroying it in a way we only know from the L.A. days?
Now onto the UCI conspiracy theory: I don't think that angle is doing the clinic regulars any favors. The evidence there is completely absent. Whereas on Sky we have at least some factual angles (doping doctors, wattages, Motoman, Yates etc.).
So it's an interesting theory, but unlike the LA case we have little meat. In the LA case there were strong rumors of gifts and there was strong evidence of covering up adverse results. With Sky that's still conjecture. Not saying it's not happening, but it's a tad thin to spin it into the central theme of Sky doping.
However, I must say that a certain stance you take on the damage of teams condoning doping is clearly nonsense.
1. The team is not the sponsor. This means that Sky does not know how the riders are prepared (legal or illegal).
2. History has shown over and over again that doping is condoned by teams. Your notion that after LA nobody dares to dope seems plausible... untill we remember the "Tour de Dopage" which was a scandal which actually rivalled the LA saga in farcical proportions. Research points out that doping doesn't seem to affect spectatorship as much as we like to think. people are forgiving (and that's a decent thing of humanity!).
So no, I do not know if Sky is on a program, but I certainly don't see any insurmountable barriers. Teams do bad things.
EnacheV said:
The odds that he's doping are indeed overwhelming. That you don't care for the historical facts is odd to say the least.
Why is that more realistic? Considering the history of cycling the odds of a winner being clean are heavily (extremely heavily!) stacked against a TT winner being clean.
Also, if we look at the team's history it's all very ballsy to claim it's squeaky clean. So no, realistic is not what I would call your stance...
If you mean: I prefer to wait for due process. Until proof shows up he get's the benefit of the doubt. I'd fully agree with you.
I thought this was a froome only thread and not a tony martin thread.
With Tony Martin, at least there is a history of strong TT performance, and whenever he was underperforming there was a plausible explanation for the same. Not the case with Froome, who magically starts doing consistently well.
Even with practice, making tangible improvement in any field is going to take time.
And how many of you actually buy that Schistosomiasis story? Looks somewhat like the LA story. Looks damn good for PR. But any sane person living in a place where the likelihood for water-borne diseases takes care. Especially if your very livelihood depends on not falling sick. Even if he was actually infected with a parasite eating his red blood cells, he would have spotted the symptoms and got it cured. Performance before and after the disease cannot vary by a large degree.
With Tony Martin, at least there is a history of strong TT performance, and whenever he was underperforming there was a plausible explanation for the same. Not the case with Froome, who magically starts doing consistently well.
Even with practice, making tangible improvement in any field is going to take time.
And how many of you actually buy that Schistosomiasis story? Looks somewhat like the LA story. Looks damn good for PR. But any sane person living in a place where the likelihood for water-borne diseases takes care. Especially if your very livelihood depends on not falling sick. Even if he was actually infected with a parasite eating his red blood cells, he would have spotted the symptoms and got it cured. Performance before and after the disease cannot vary by a large degree.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram