• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 298 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
timbo25 said:
you do know, footballers still have the scheduled urinetest like cyclist had in 1996?

The testing issue is a separate one. I wasn't referring to that.

I referred to my disagreement with using today's incident to further the argument against Froome doping. I pointed out the similarity in football where cheating/diving for pens are done. Still doesn't mean you can say that player should have more suspicion on doping because he cheated to achieve this and came up with a BS excuse along with his manager to defend it. That's the logic I applied.
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
LaFlorecita said:
I'm pretty sure he knows how to spot a doper though. IIRC he has criticized Contador in the past, so these tweets are pretty telling.

Or he is just stroking his ego, wanting to believe that he was beaten in 2008 by the most talented rider. Ricco can't possibly know who is most talented. That's the problem with doping.
 
gooner said:
The testing issue is a separate one. I wasn't referring to that.

I referred to my disagreement with using today's incident to further the argument against Froome doping. I pointed out the similarity in football where cheating/diving for pens are done. Still doesn't mean you can say that player should have more suspicion on doping because he cheated to achieve this and came up with a BS excuse along with his manager to defend it. That's the logic I applied.

Logic is not welcome in the clinic! Well, twisted logic is...
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
King Boonen said:
WADA doesn't have a charter does it? I see no problem with this. WADA review evidence all the time, why not this? Many people have said they want the data given to independent experts, if not WADA or someone they choose who else?

Give it to Vayer. If he says it's plausible, that would restore some confidence in Froome.
 
Jul 12, 2013
26
0
0
Visit site
OK, so Grappe and Coggan have 0 credibility but Ricco is suddenly a pillar of integrity. I see. I understand picking and choosing the "facts" in order to progress your argument but that's really pushing it.
 
Jan 23, 2013
239
0
0
Visit site
bewildered said:
I agree with your analysis but I don't think it was an epic fail, rather it was a roaring success. It was done solely for PR, to stop journalists asking awkward questions and the majority of the uninformed public now think that Sky have proved they are clean.

Coupled with Froome's performance on l'Alpe, which will be interpreted as 'human' (after numerous alien performances), Brailsford has pulled a PR masterstroke today.

In fact the more I think about it I now think he made it look like he bonked, I'd say Brailsford laid down the law to him after the rest day questions

I see your point, but the best this PR stunt could hope to achieve is a little less journalism pressure in the shirt term. I'd like to hear the answer to the question:

"Why did you choose to send the data to a physiologist who stated that Lance Armstrong was not doping, when it is now known that he was admittedly doping at that time?"

That's a fair question that does not cast an aspersion on Froome, rather on a decision Brailsford made.

There are thousands of physiologists, and they picked one of the worst possible ones to use as a credible resource. Silly move.
 
Lanark said:
Give it to Vayer. If he says it's plausible, that would restore some confidence in Froome.

Why is Vayer suddenly seen as more credible than WADA? Because he's accusing people? Give it to WADA, let them appoint a panel and review it. They can do the same with everyone else's data and it can become a standard for doping control.
 
Jun 27, 2013
116
0
0
Visit site
gooner said:
The testing issue is a separate one. I wasn't referring to that.

I referred to my disagreement with using today's incident to further the argument against Froome doping. I pointed out the similarity in football where cheating/diving for pens are done. Still doesn't mean you can say that player should have more suspicion on doping because he cheated to achieve this and came up with a BS excuse along with his manager to defend it. That's the logic I applied.

which is irrational
 
gooner said:
The testing issue is a separate one. I wasn't referring to that.

I referred to my disagreement with using today's incident to further the argument against Froome doping. I pointed out the similarity in football where cheating/diving for pens are done. Still doesn't mean you can say that player should have more suspicion on doping because he cheated to achieve this and came up with a BS excuse along with his manager to defend it. That's the logic I applied.

I disagree.

There are 4 barriers to doping. Moral, Health, fear of getting caught and not introduced to it. If you believe in miracles you can add- no need for it (eg Froome, Usain Bolt, Federer, Messi- best anyway, why risk doping).

But if someone is seen to cheat in other ways, that confirms to us that barrier number 1 is not particularly strong.

They may still not dope for other reasons , but it probably wont be because they think cheating is bad (like say Bassons)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
King Boonen said:
WADA doesn't have a charter does it? I see no problem with this. WADA review evidence all the time, why not this? Many people have said they want the data given to independent experts, if not WADA or someone they choose who else?

Strange then that UKAD have coe out and said their job is to prove not doping, not give 'kite marks' to riders to prove they are clean and as Python puts it Braiilsford know this and is playing games.

It is obvious Sky are hiding something and in cycling that something can only be one thing. Doping.
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
Velonews was fertile ground for the Armstrong fraud. Carmichael coaching techniques, Trek bikes, physical anomalies. All of it.

Don't be surprised they sell the Sky fraud like they did the Armstrong one.

It sure was, but they seemed to have gotten better in the last year or two. Sigh..

Maybe they just jumped on the bandwagon when the writing on the wall became too large. :(
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
King Boonen said:
Why is Vayer suddenly seen as more credible than WADA? Because he's accusing people? Give it to WADA, let them appoint a panel and review it. They can do the same with everyone else's data and it can become a standard for doping control.

Why would WADA do that though? That's never gonna happen, an empty promise, like Contador saying they can check his DNA in the Puerto case, knowing the Spanish will never ask him.

Personally I trust Vayer because he is not affraid to say when he thinks a performance is implausible. Something Grappe clearly has had a problem with in the Armstrong case.
 
python said:
brailsford's offer to involve wada in the froome's controversy stinks to the sky...

anyone in his position would have known too well that wada will NEVER, EVER get itself involved in proving an athlete is NOT a doper because their charter is to prove the exact opposite when both the legal and scientific evidence allow so.

that the sky chief gets involved in the cheap, transparent PR easily dismissable on common sense and expierence points to me he has something to hide...

and as pointed earlier, froome's arrogance after breaking the simple sporting rule today and referring to the team mate breaking it, hardly helps the case of his obvious capability to cheat and cover it with the ridiculously stupid nonsense.

yep
spot on python
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
So, let's get this straight between Lance and Froome:

1. Had a disease - check.
2. Showed no GT credentials before transformation - check
3. Sean Yates on staff - check
4. Hired doctor known for doping - check
5. Team domestiques ripping legs off top contenders - check
6. Snarky comments - check

7. threw mud at Contador via Twitter - check
 

TRENDING THREADS