Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Stephane Heulot:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sport/tour-de-france-froome-est-il-surnaturel_1266504.html

Alors que Frédéric Grappe se garde de toutes prises de positions, d'autres ne s'embarrassent pas des réserves d'usage, à l'image de Sébastien Heulot. "Devant, Froome a mis un énorme coup de marteau en dégageant une impression de déjà-vu. Ridicule. Je n'ai même pas envie d'épiloguer. C'est dommage... Il y a pourtant eu une vraie prise de conscience du peloton. Pour le reste...", regrette le manager de l'équipe Sojasun. "Il n'y a même pas eu d'intelligence en termes de comportement. Il parle au téléphone dans la montée. Certains disaient qu'il allait bientôt se mettre à chanter. Quand on connaît la difficulté de boire un coup dans le Ventoux...", s'indigne-t-il.

He is in doubt wheter Froomie will go sing on the next mountainstage.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I guess the other thing that worries me about the Brits is their new found addiction to Gold medals at the Olympics.

I'm under no illusions as to what "Team GB" might be up to, but having watched the shamples that was Great Britain in the 1996 Olympics and the routine whippings our guys got off the Eastern bloc in the 70s and 80s, I'd much sooner have a lot of potentially dodgy golden gongs than a bunch of clean losers.

I make no apologies for this view. (Though I do have real issues with competitors being doped without their knowledge. Not sure how common this is.)

 

[zalacain]

Please show us where? I live in the UK and all i see is a normalization of his results ("Froome extends lead") like it's nothing.

It was only last year than any major UK newspaper was deleting any questions about Wiggo's and sky's performances in the comments section.
I haven't even bothered to check this year.

The Guardian this year are deleting critical comments if they contain theories such as those put forward here.
The Telegraph deleted the whole comments section.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

The Guardian this year are deleting critical comments if they contain theories such as those put forward here.
The Telegraph deleted the whole comments section.

Libel Laws.

 

[darwin553]

The Guardian this year are deleting critical comments if they contain theories such as those put forward here.
The Telegraph deleted the whole comments section.

Nothing unusual there.

 

[The Hitch]

Lol Kirby can't understand why the journalists ask questions of froome

"He couldn't be more clear. He's already said 10 times that his performances are veritable".

maybe shouldnt be a surprise that an Armstrong believer to the last is so gullable.

 

[infeXio]

Forgive me for asking, but who is this Kirby fellow that's been mentioned ever so often recently (apart from being a "pundit"/commentator in the UK)

 

[kaffenback]

I'm under no illusions as to what "Team GB" might be up to, but having watched the shamples that was Great Britain in the 1996 Olympics and the routine whippings our guys got off the Eastern bloc in the 70s and 80s, I'd much sooner have a lot of potentially dodgy golden gongs than a bunch of clean losers.

I make no apologies for this view. (Though I do have real issues with competitors being doped without their knowledge. Not sure how common this is.)

So you're here in the clinic with the view that doping is okay?
I also don't get why it would make any difference to your life if we get a gold medal or come 5th? National pride? How? Why exactly? Is it because people on the supermarket till seem in a slightly more upbeat/friendly mood following a gold medal?
Its all short-term gain with no long-term aim.

Whether 'we' win, just get pipped or get absolutely hammered, I want to believe in it. I want to enjoy what I'm watching. I want drama and romance.
I don't need to see British gold medals to feel good about myself.
Give me clean losers every day of the week, at least with my approach, maybe one day we will also get clean winners. Its a decent ambition no?
With your defeatism and pointless jingoism, all we will end up with are dirty winners and losers.

 

[kaffenback]

The Guardian this year are deleting critical comments if they contain theories such as those put forward here.
The Telegraph deleted the whole comments section.

This is the scariest development IMO.
Not only are the writers sticking to the script in the vast majority of cases but the web bods are not even allowing free comment, because they are scared of upsetting the suits upstairs and PRs who are often on them like a flash if certain negative stuff is left on mainstream websites.
It is a rigged game. Fairly innocently done in some cases but with serious implications.

It is one thing to limit nasty and vindictive diatribe often associated with comments sections, forums and social media but it is a very fine line between that and badly damaging free speech, hiding the truth and distorting public opinion.

 

[Snafu352]

LOL Really?

"we will end up with are dirty winners and losers."

Welcome to reality with humans in the World.

"Drama and romance" equals being destroyed and becoming irrelivant.
Pretty much as has happen to Britain post world war one.

The 90's and 00's have a lot of answer for in cycling not least the bordering on if not actually obssesive, pursuit of any outstanding result as "suspicious," as defined by a few self anointed few often without any real evidence.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Forgive me for asking, but who is this Kirby fellow that's been mentioned ever so often recently (apart from being a "pundit"/commentator in the UK)

The knucklehead commentating on Eurosport. He gushes over Sky daily.

 

[alitogata]

Hi, I've been a long time viewer of the forums and especially the clinic, mainly due to the LA affair and following reading books from T Hamilton and D Walsh amongst others.

This is my first post, forgive me if I veer off topic but I want to provide a little context and brief background.. I am from the UK, a former sports journalist and now keen cyclist and although I followed the TDF many years ago (maybe around early 90s to early 00s), interest was renewed only after the sudden emergence of Team Sky, continued success of British Cycling and my own cycling.

I have been growing ever more suspicious of the above's success, not just because it has been a relatively new phenomenon in a sport the UK is not culturally and historically associated with as strongly as many other countries but also because of the build-up and planning to London 2012 and the expected returns (financially and emotionally) from all the investment.
This investment in an Olympics and a bizarre need for medals in kind has proven over and over to result in doping programs, most often, right from the very top. We in the UK love to point fingers at foreigners and find it much easier to believe that other nations don't play by the same rules as we upstanding plucky losers do, well the truth is very different. The UK is under the same and maybe even more pressure to succeed and are susceptible to all the temptations and short-cuts.

Sky/Wiggins
Wiggins was clearly a very talented bike rider. He then clearly wanted to become a legend and adapted his skills to the road and ultimately the TDF.
It would be naïve to think that transition could be done as quickly and successfully without pushing every boundary to the limit.
It has been accepted by almost everyone involved in pro cycling that to reach and remain at the top, or at least at a level considered to be successful during the last 20 years (in the evolved professional sporting world), riders HAD to enhance their natural ability with some or all the available doping products and methods.
This, I believe to be undeniable. If anyone reading this forum disagrees with that statement then I would urge you to look at the evidence, much of which is documented in this very place.
Is it realistic to then fly through and dominate the sport... BC on the track, now Sky on the road without breaking through those same boundaries, even with more scientific understanding, financial clout, cloak of respectability.
Stand up, Sir David of Brailsford.

Ok, enough waffle.
Froome.

I am British. I'm not particularly patriotic and believe in things on their own merit. Was I proud when Wiggins won the TDF and Olympics last year?
Not really. Why? Read further above.
Clearly obvious to me as an intelligent and balanced person (I hope) that to reach the top in any sport; you need an edge. Sometimes, the very best do have an obvious physical advantage.. the extra special technique and belief to take them to the top.
e.g. Federer. e.g. Woods (Now, I am not saying that these two have never taken PEDS. My gut says not but maybe but I do still believe the natural talent and desire of these two means they would dominate their sport with or without)
Cycling I think is different. Technique is important yes, but physical capability and endurance is massive and this is the area where doping has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to absolutely transform performance to the point of "don't bother turning up unless you are properly juiced".

People say, oh its cleaner now. Since when? Since when the next batch of undetectable PEDS came out?
Since when 1 or 2 teams made a genuine effort to be clean teams.
By the way, how are Garmin doing in this year's TDF?
I believe it is cleaner by 1 or 2 teams max. That's it. Look at the lessons of life, do old dogs learn new tricks? No! Only new shortcuts!
My educated guess is that 5-20 years ago, 95% of the TDF field were on dope, as recently as 3 years ago 90% of the TDF field were on dope.
Last year I believe that 85% of the field were doping.
This year I think that at least 80% of the field are doping.

Now, taking into account all the red flags about Froome -
- the 'convenient' bilzaria
- the rise from nowhere
- the drastically improved results
- issues with his build/health/riding style

Combine that with the reality of what has to be done to even compete at the top of the most iconic and important event in the sport -
- i.e. Doping is compulsory (Hey, even Lance finally said so)

Now, combine that with what we have seen from Froome this year -
- utterly dominant in the mountains
- another gear entirely to the best climbers
- still seems/acts well within himself - very likely even more available in the tank if required
- also a monster in the ITT - even massive dopers like Indurain weren't as dually 'gifted'. This is a huge red flag with his build.

In fact, the 4+ minute lead he has built could have been much, much larger if the team so wished. In fact, Sky's problems have probably kept the big lead down to a minimum. I think they will probably cruise it now, might lose a bit here and there but offset it on the ITT and Alpe.
They will stick to a script and try and keep it within the realms of believability (for the average sports fan and naïve/non-questioning types).

However, as far as I am concerned. The game is up.

1) Froome is very, very dirty - one of the most doped riders in the history of cycling.

2) Sky and BC are possibly the source of the dirt but at the very least are dirty by association.

I am actually ashamed to be British because this weird in-built thing of "oh we're british, so we must be clean" is quite clearly bull~hit, does not stack up when given the evidence and is quite frankly arrogant and ignorant.

I have a strange feeling that something big is going to happen before the end of this TDF.
I think someone in the race may make a stand. I don't think he will get popped but in my gut, I think there is a chance that the massively dominant Chris Froome may not win the 2013 TDF.

Great post.. hope for the same.. but...

 

[The Hitch]

Forgive me for asking, but who is this Kirby fellow that's been mentioned ever so often recently (apart from being a "pundit"/commentator in the UK)

Village idiot at eurosport. They be bothered to hire expert commentators so give kirby any commentary jobthey have a vacancy for - cycling, motorracing, weightlifting, diving etc.

he cllaims to have been involved with cycling for 20 years but still hasn't figured out the difference between the Ronde van Vlanderen and Flehce Wallone, or between Pantani and Poulidor for that matter.

Now smuggly said that all the riders know chris froome is clean and its no surprise to see its just the journalists and not the riders who are bringing up these unfortunate questions.

Also says Chris Froome timed his peak just right.hmmmm

 

[kaffenback]

LOL Really?

"we will end up with are dirty winners and losers."

Welcome to reality with humans in the World.

"Drama and romance" equals being destroyed and becoming irrelivant.
Pretty much as has happen to Britain post world war one.

The 90's and 00's have a lot of answer for in cycling not least the bordering on if not actually obssesive, pursuit of any outstanding result as "suspicious," as defined by a few self anointed few often without any real evidence.

Not quite sure I follow this post. Seems to suggest that you believe that the only way to 'get on' in the world is to be 'dirty' and so this is now the reality.
But that anyone questioning this in regard to cycling is an obsessive fool?

Doesn't add up at all to me, but if I've read it wrong please correct me.

 

[Snafu352]

The deleting of un-substantiated speculation which potnetially could result in legal measures againest the innocent party hosting that speculation is hardly denial of free speech.
If the comments had solid good data to substantiate them they wouldn't be deleted.
One of the modern plagues nurtured by the internet is peoples belief that because they have an opinion it is de facto valid.
An opinion exhibiting bias and / or a lack of data or worse poor, incomplete or plain wrong data is worthless.

 

[Snafu352]

Great post.. (

Thought it was a rubbish post.

Lots of amateur "gut feeling", completely lacking in any data to support the opinion.

Like most of the trash posted in the clinic. Amateur and lacking.

Please note i don't know who is doping or not, i do know opinion attenpting to be passed off as fact when i see it however. Aka "the clinic."

 

[FrankChickens]

Lol Kirby can't understand why the journalists ask questions of froome

"He couldn't be more clear. He's already said 10 times that his performances are veritable".

maybe shouldnt be a surprise that an Armstrong believer to the last is so gullable.

Lazy journalism with the same old doping questions running on repeat IMO.

Froome should be challenged on why, at Tour no.100, he has set his sights so low. The mountain classification and GC have been easy marks for him.

Why is he overlooking the Green jersey? Jalabert did it, and he was clean too.

Also, with a bit more initiative, he could use his post-stage warmdown to circumnavigate the earth anti-clockwise, at just above the speed of light - this would reverse his aging process and open the door for the white jersey as well.

The fans deserve more!

 

[Parrulo]

Village idiot at eurosport. They be bothered to hire expert commentators so give kirby any commentary jobthey have a vacancy for - cycling, motorracing, weightlifting, diving etc.

he cllaims to have been involved with cycling for 20 years but still hasn't figured out the difference between the Ronde van Vlanderen and Flehce Wallone, or between Pantani and Poulidor for that matter.

Now smuggly said that all the riders know chris froome is clean and its no surprise to see its just the journalists and not the riders who are bringing up these unfortunate questions.

Also says Chris Froome timed his peak just right.hmmmm

Its not hard to time your peak just right when your peak lasts an entire season

 

[Deagol]

It's not just the British public, most Joe public are clueless with regards to drugs in sport. UK, US, China, Jamaica, Australia etc it doesn't matter, the general public like to believe their lot are clean and are always up in arms if their lot get accused of doping. ....

This may be mostly true, but let us not forget many of Armstrong's greatest critics were from his own country.

Perhaps D. Walsh will become that for Great Britain?

I hope we will see soon

 

[Deagol]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/15/team-sky-chris-froome-tour-de-france



Big Mig agrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tFM7wcMiPdI#t=3146s

These guys are funny, real scientific those training schedules of Luigi Cecchini. Lolz.

Attacking from out of the saddle means just one thing: an exessive amount of EXTRA power in your legs.

LOL, attacking out of the saddle creates too much drag on a climb? someone should have told that to Contador..

 

[Benotti69]

Show us the quote.

It was a press conferance not a secret interregation. If Bailsford did say that you should be able to find it in the transcript.

You seemed pretty ok with showing us quotes when you thought you had him. WHats stopping you now?

However Brailsford then mentioned WADA as perhaps a portal for the team to execute the analysis of data. There are currently no concrete plans to do anything of the sort, however Brailsford did admit that he'd talked to WADA about the idea.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-how-can-we-convince-you-we-arent-doping

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I'm under no illusions as to what "Team GB" might be up to, but having watched the shamples that was Great Britain in the 1996 Olympics and the routine whippings our guys got off the Eastern bloc in the 70s and 80s, I'd much sooner have a lot of potentially dodgy golden gongs than a bunch of clean losers.

I make no apologies for this view. (Though I do have real issues with competitors being doped without their knowledge. Not sure how common this is.)

There is no reason to apologize anyway. You're a fan of Britain, not a fan of cycling. There is nothing wrong with that, per se. You're here because a British team is doing well. Personally, I'm glad you said this so I won't waste any more time with you, since I don't care about any nation or cyclist doing well, but rather the sport being healthy.

 

[MizunoMX20]

Thanks Hitch. I felt after reading so many other's well intentioned and passionate views that I should share mine too.

I love sport and I am an idealist so I want to watch fair competition, otherwise its just another form of WWE. Being such a growing sport in the UK, I would love to see cycling really clean up its act and being a force for good - health, fitness, competition etc. but when the very top of the sport has been and still is so dirty and clouded in suspicion and the new 'forces for change' such as Sky are now dominant and acting defensively, it doesn't look good. Its incredibly sad actually.
Testing bodies needs to react to the new methods ASAP, Froome needs to be busted and then, maybe, just maybe, with a new head of UCI and some proper truth and reconciliation action instead of just talk, it could be the real line in the sand moment the sport needs.

I am sceptical though because sport as a whole has a huge problem in today's world with so much money at stake and so much incredible technology available. The whole scientific development side has been/is taking over and ultimately, many years down the road, doping to some degree may well be accepted and allowed as its too potentially huge an industry to hold back forever.

Many of us love the romance of sport but the love affair is almost dead now for those who only believe in the real thing. So much of what we see is not truly real. The media do a heck of a job maintaining the pretence and for the most part, not even entering into a debate.
Far too many pay packets at stake in all areas of the industry for this.
I've worked in sport as a professional sportsman, as a sports business owner and in the media and I know how it works inside-out. It is a very dishonest and cut-throat world and becoming more so every year. Sport was an escape from the harsher realities of the world to some extent but sadly, no more.
Ultimately, its why I left the industry because in the end it did not sit well with me and I wanted to lead a simpler and more truthful existence.

Maybe spending time in The Clinic is not healthy!! But at least there are some like-minded souls who want to see some morality and honesty in the world of cycling and sport in general. I think they call it pis~ing against the wind!

True words spoken right here.

 

[kaffenback]

The deleting of un-substantiated speculation which potnetially could result in legal measures againest the innocent party hosting that speculation is hardly denial of free speech.
If the comments had solid good data to substantiate them they wouldn't be deleted.
One of the modern plagues nurtured by the internet is peoples belief that because they have an opinion it is de facto valid.
An opinion exhibiting bias and / or a lack of data or worse poor, incomplete or plain wrong data is worthless.

Any and every opinion is valid regardless of any legal, moral or other implication.
It is your opinion that speculative opinion is worthless.
I totally disagree.
Speculation is a fuel for discussion and debate and that is what makes us interesting and very different human beings.

Anyway, back on topic.
Froome's opinion is that he would rather not have to deal with doubts over him doping.

Your opinion is that nobody should speculate about 'innocent' Froome doping without any evidence. Giving him a very easy ride there then! No, nothing to see here!

My opinion is that if good, decent people didn't question what they saw and ultimately if brave people didn't reveal the truth, then the bad, dishonest people will always win and lies and corruption will rule.

Much of the world is already fu~ked in this regard, but shouldn't we try and keep it out of sport or at least keep them on their toes if we possibly can.

 

[alitogata]

Thought it was a rubbish post.

Lots of amateur "gut feeling", completely lacking in any data to support the opinion.

Like most of the trash posted in the clinic. Amateur and lacking.

Please note i don't know who is doping or not, i do know opinion attenpting to be passed off as fact when i see it however. Aka "the clinic."

I really don't get why he has to repost all the data that is already posted all over this forum. We have read already Wiggins, Froome whoever data's and reposting doesn't make someones personal opinion more reliable.