Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Raiko200]

Even Freaky Floyd stage 17 2006 wasn't this warped!

Umm...it was pretty darn close. : )

 

[Bobito]

Except their times are nowhere near froome's . Noone is saying they're clean anyway, but how can they be doped and so far below a clean froome. They can't simple as that.

I have no idea if it's correct, but the table circulating on the web puts the top six on Sunday among the 25 fastest ascents of Ventoux.

That hardly screams "clean peloton" even with a ferocious tailwind.

 

[lemoogle]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can write this after Armstrong.

Most Froome supporters aren't "after armstrong" though

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

So:
. . . . . . Clean Dirty
Froome.. 40% 60%
Contador 60% 40%




Wait whaaaaaaat? Defending Froome with logic like that isn't going to do him any favours.

Like I said, I just pulled numbers off the top of my head. I'm not trying to defend Froome here. As I've stated many times, I hold valid the possibility he is doping. The main point I am trying to make, is that there is a difference between a rider possibly doping and a rider definitely doping.

 

[The Hitch]

even with a ferocious tailwind.

Nice try.

 

[lemoogle]

I have no idea if it's correct, but the table circulating on the web puts the top six on Sunday among the 25 fastest ascents of Ventoux.

That hardly screams "clean peloton" even with a ferocious tailwind.

Oh I fully agree, and tailwind. Just responding to the idea that they are doping but froome is the almighty cleansus.

 

[Galic Ho]

I don't think Contador will ever be clean and i think there is zero chance that a clean froome can beat a dirty contador...let alone spank him.In my proud opinion.

The basic test for cleanliness should be by default this:

"Given the level of racing in this Tour, where would Greg Lemond in 1989 form finish?"

Now take a look at the 2011 winner Evans. Over 8 minutes back on Ventoux with Morabito (I believe it was him) and Gilbert. Yes, Phillipe Gilbert.

I don't need to add anymore. We have Froome's level. The rest of the GC and then all the guys who in theory should be up there but are getting literally pantsed every stage. This last group are more or less all the French teams, BMC, Lampre, Cannondale (minus flat stages) so basically the Italians too, Radioshack (yeah this is a BIG tell) and that about sums it up. Three levels of performance. Only the latter looks legit. Froome use to be the bottom rung of this last group, now he's beating the known dopers easily. Totally legit I say.

 

[lemoogle]

Nice try.

I prefer the "They were much faster in 1999 and 2004" that I kept hearing at work today.

 

[Taxus4a]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can write this after Armstrong.

Estimado bobo, with Lance there was a lot of evidence, not only him, but around all the peloton, today is very different.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

I find it hard to believe that anyone can write this after Armstrong.

Armstrong's defences were made in the face of factual evidence. There's been documented testimony of Armstrong's guilt for the last decade, and while he was still at the top. Only fanatics maintained Armstrong's innocence, disregarding the evidence.

The case with Froome is different. We do not have evidence. We have lots of suspicion, but there is a difference. With Armstrong, there was more than suspicion.

I really hope I never face a jury made up of clinicians.

 

[Bobito]

Estimado bobo, with Lance there was a lot of evidence, not only him, but around all the peloton, today is very different.

The performance of the riders in the race is the single best piece of evidence.

Riding up Ventoux as fast as only known dopers have ridden when they were known to be doping is the most solid sort of evidence I can imagine.

It's like how I know my neighbor smokes weed even though he is not in prison. I can smell it.

 

[Galic Ho]

Umm...it was pretty darn close. : )

I still remember Stuart O'Grady talking about watching 'Freaky Floyd' catch their breakaway on his own and then proceed to drop them all, right after the end of that stage. He knew. Mannerisms and vocal intonation gave it away.

It's interesting to think of this years racing in retrospect. I think had there been no 2006, 2007 and 2008 Tour doping violations, we'd wouldn't have seen what we did yesterday. Froome would have had no need to restrain himself. Did Floyd? Nope, he went for the whole thing. Didn't hold back at all.

Froome's holding back. Didn't on Ax3 as much as Ventoux, but yesterday he did. Watching his power meter, talking on the radio...he's being instructed on HOW much to let out of the bag.

 

[bikelizard]

An interesting comparison between Usain Bolt and Froome. Bolt has been handily beating everyone in the field. Sometimes it's not even close. He is unarguably the best in the world. Yet, now we find that his closest competitors are doping. They have failed tests. He has not.

Is he using some yet undetectable drug the others don't have access to? It's obviously not possible he could outperform dopers if he's not doping himself right?

Tailwind?
Crosswind?
Olympic Committee coverup?
Puma has paid everyone off?
All his competitors are extremely poor responders to doping?

It's one of the above or he's just better than even the dopers are. But that isn't possible is it?

(yes, sarcasm)

Well, no. Usain Bolt is a natural talent, he's been excellent since his youth. Froome just popped up suddenly.

I don't say Bolt is clean but he can't be compared to Froome.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Estimado bobo, with Lance there was a lot of evidence, not only him, but around all the peloton, today is very different.

really?
same team owners, same DSs, same dope doctors and its the same clowns who are still in charge at UCI.

Nothing has changed. Ascend times up Ventoux are close to records etc.

And Froomey went from Donkey to Racehorse in record time.

 

[bikelizard]

Estimado bobo, with Lance there was a lot of evidence, not only him, but around all the peloton, today is very different.

It's just Froome's 2nd year on the top, there wasn't much evidence on Armstrong in 2001 either. Just come back in 5 years time.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

An interesting comparison between Usain Bolt and Froome. Bolt has been handily beating everyone in the field. Sometimes it's not even close. He is unarguably the best in the world. Yet, now we find that his closest competitors are doping. They have failed tests. He has not.

Is he using some yet undetectable drug the others don't have access to? It's obviously not possible he could outperform dopers if he's not doping himself right?

Tailwind?
Crosswind?
Olympic Committee coverup?
Puma has paid everyone off?
All his competitors are extremely poor responders to doping?

It's one of the above or he's just better than even the dopers are. But that isn't possible is it?

(yes, sarcasm)

The only notion more ridiculous than Froome being clean is Bolt being clean.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

I'm not sure where your points refute my logic.

There second statement translates to : " Froome destroys Conta and valverde AND conta and valverde are doped " IMPLIES " froome is doped".
This is a semi opinion here which i clarify in the final statement of my original post.

the first statement simply states that there IS a chance that Contador and Valverde are not doped and that Froome is.

Combining those statements ( skipping a few steps ) to the fact that froome is destroying them (hence Destroy(Froome,AC/V) <=> T) is equivalent to the Probability of Froome doping is greater than AC/V doping. ( T AND D(AC/V) -> D(Froome) <=> D(AC/V) -> D (Froome )

Your calculations disregard all other permutations for who is/isn't doping. What it comes down to, is that because Froome is ahead of Contador, you think there is a higher chance of him doping. That's a perfectly valid reason for suspicion, but it is still not evidence. I agree that there is a chance Froome is doping, especially given that he is beating Contador. But I also hold the opinion that there is a chance Contador is doping, since he clearly has evidence against him in previous years.

None of this is evidence for this year's tour. All we are talking about are our opinions and suspicions. None of it is fact. That's my point. It doesn't matter what numbers we each come up with, who's where on whose suspicion index, or who can't be beating who because they were rubbish when they were 12, without factual evidence we are only stating our opinion.

There's nothing wrong with opinion, except for people confusing it for fact.

 

[bikelizard]

That explains you entirely.

You want the full evidence and verdict to form an opinion.

The majority here in the Clinic who you earlier referred to do not need to do that. Most of us knew Contador and Valverde were doping before their bans. Actually they're two of my favourite riders. I knew. It was HOW they ride and the fact they've been good since they were teenagers that alleviates what you've mistaken as pure hatred for Froome, applying to them.

Froome ain't worth hating. Neither are Sky. Calling them out on their BS...definitely worth standing up for. There is virtue in clean cycling. Most of us don't need the smoking gun and dead body to figure it all out though.

As for your outlook on cycling as a whole...that is your prerogative. The dislike with what Sky are doing comes down to what was referred to as an Arms Race of doping that began when the Anglo nations started claiming 'cycling is now clean and we're winning because of it.' It'd be so easy for me to place you in the same category as the Brits pre WW2 with their 'peace in our times rot' that you simply don't want to see what is there; but why bother?

Another new forumist mentioned about 10-15 pages back how over 50 plus pages in a day, nobody had changed their mind. Bear that in mind when you post. Only the Skybots want to support Sky. People here who don't, quite a lot of them don't like Valverde and Contador either. Others don't like the blatant extra degree of doping extended to team Sky from the UCI and ASO. It's not all black and white here. There is a lot more to it than you think. Just be mindful of that. Also note, some people like having a thread to come and read where the ridiculous can be pocked fun at. Because face it, when was the last time the Tour was this big of a joke? Even Freaky Floyd stage 17 2006 wasn't this warped!

Good post, well said!

 

[H2OUUP2]

It's just Froome's 2nd year on the top, there wasn't much evidence on Armstrong in 2001 either. Just come back in 5 years time.

Exactly. People who are defending Froome sound like the people who defended Armstrong way back when. Not right now.

These Froome fanboys were probably not around in the late 90's, early 2000's. I don't think they realize how silly they sound.

 

[red_flanders]

...What it comes down to, is that because Froome is ahead of Contador, you think there is a higher chance of him doping. That's a perfectly valid reason for suspicion, but it is still not evidence...

If this were a court (and clearly it isn't) Froome's performance would certainly be "evidence". What it would not be is proof.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Exactly. People who are defending Froome sound like the people who defended Armstrong way back when. Not right now.

These Froome fanboys were probably not around in the late 90's, early 2000's. I don't think they realize how silly they sound.

And it will only escalate. The biggest difference is that the number of people questioning Armstrong was relatively small early in his TdF career. Those of us who were howling our protests were drowned out by a chorus of "never tested positive," etc.

Unfortunately for Froome, the percentage of people who believe in him is significantly lower than those early days of Lance.

 

[buckle]

An interesting comparison between Usain Bolt and Froome. Bolt has been handily beating everyone in the field. Sometimes it's not even close. He is unarguably the best in the world. Yet, now we find that his closest competitors are doping. They have failed tests. He has not.

Is he using some yet undetectable drug the others don't have access to? It's obviously not possible he could outperform dopers if he's not doping himself right?

Tailwind?
Crosswind?
Olympic Committee coverup?
Puma has paid everyone off?
All his competitors are extremely poor responders to doping?

It's one of the above or he's just better than even the dopers are. But that isn't possible is it?

(yes, sarcasm)

One gets money from Murdoch and the other Richard Branson. The latter must be a little worried about his investment at the moment. BT's boss joining the government might work against SKY. Cameron just needs to find the right angle to get something out of a bust but that is not obvious. If he could then the instruction to take them down would be issued.

 

[Taxus4a]

Armstrong's defences were made in the face of factual evidence. There's been documented testimony of Armstrong's guilt for the last decade, and while he was still at the top. Only fanatics maintained Armstrong's innocence, disregarding the evidence.

The case with Froome is different. We do not have evidence. We have lots of suspicion, but there is a difference. With Armstrong, there was more than suspicion.

I really hope I never face a jury made up of clinicians.

Fanatic suspicious that write usually in the clinic, I nma a clinician as well, and dont worry for me, i have never say somaone is guilty without proofs or enough evidence, but with Froome or SKy, even there is no evidence...

 

[LaFlorecita]

A common pattern:

Armstrong - testicular cancer
Contador - brain aneurysm
Froome - schistosomiasis

Serious problems that leave most people with permanent after effects.

However they provide convenient excuses for taking all sorts of drugs. They also may explain the psychological mechanism that allows an already fierce competitor to be willing to do whatever it takes to win.

Just to prove that the above argument is not very good, I'm tempted to add:

Lemond - gunshot wound to the thigh

But I'll get screamed at.

Serious question: in what other sport do folks recover from serious life threatening problems of all kinds to win the premier event?

I would never doubt Contador's illness. The evidence is right there. Neither Lance's cancer but that's more of a gut feeling. Froome's bilharzia story just sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[PasqualeMendoza]

That explains you entirely.

You want the full evidence and verdict to form an opinion.

The majority here in the Clinic who you earlier referred to do not need to do that. Most of us knew Contador and Valverde were doping before their bans. Actually they're two of my favourite riders. I knew. It was HOW they ride and the fact they've been good since they were teenagers that alleviates what you've mistaken as pure hatred for Froome, applying to them.

Froome ain't worth hating. Neither are Sky. Calling them out on their BS...definitely worth standing up for. There is virtue in clean cycling. Most of us don't need the smoking gun and dead body to figure it all out though.

As for your outlook on cycling as a whole...that is your prerogative. The dislike with what Sky are doing comes down to what was referred to as an Arms Race of doping that began when the Anglo nations started claiming 'cycling is now clean and we're winning because of it.' It'd be so easy for me to place you in the same category as the Brits pre WW2 with their 'peace in our times rot' that you simply don't want to see what is there; but why bother?

Another new forumist mentioned about 10-15 pages back how over 50 plus pages in a day, nobody had changed their mind. Bear that in mind when you post. Only the Skybots want to support Sky. People here who don't, quite a lot of them don't like Valverde and Contador either. Others don't like the blatant extra degree of doping extended to team Sky from the UCI and ASO. It's not all black and white here. There is a lot more to it than you think. Just be mindful of that. Also note, some people like having a thread to come and read where the ridiculous can be pocked fun at. Because face it, when was the last time the Tour was this big of a joke? Even Freaky Floyd stage 17 2006 wasn't this warped!

You're very quick to decide that you've got a complete picture of me. I've only made a handful of posts, yet you can sum me up entirely!!!

Only, you've not quite got me right. I have nothing wrong with people forming opinions. What I have an issue with is people stating them as fact.

There is a big difference between "I think Froome is a doper" and "Froome is a doper". Personally, I do agree with the former, but I still couldn't say the latter without evidence.

But don't worry about my opinion. I figured my break from the gospel would have a lot of people pegging me as a 'skybot'. That's what I meant when I talked about the parochial atmosphere of the clinic.