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

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 300 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
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?
If you are going to pitch, throw harder. The answer you are looking for is that they recognize they don't want to be part of a PR campaign.
 
May 27, 2012
5,293
0
0
gooner said:
And here is why I disagree using my argument.

Eduardo blatantly cheating against Celtic, smiling and coming out with a BS excuse with Wenger vehemently defending it. Similarly with Pires against Portsmouth. Harry Redknapp, then the Portsmouth manage blasted Pires and was asked would he have no problem if Teddy Sheringham did it for them. He said he probably wouldn't have had. Phil Brown said the same thing when he was Hull manager. That doesn't mean we can say that these managers would also have no problems if there players are doping and especially in the case of Wenger from his past comments. Not one bit of suspicion would I add to anyone here from a doping perspective due to this.

This was similar to Froome today.
Then you need to become involved with a profession where millions of dollars are exchanging hands, and watch how quickly almost everyone turns into sharks. I saw if first hand in the US banking industry, and I can tell you that those who were cheating on a large level were cheating on a small level also, and the people who were doing things the right way weren't cheating at all.

EDIT: Then again, what happened today could have been an illusion, calculated to provide cover for a man who's numbers are ridiculous...which makes the ruse even more indicative of an organization who is rotten to the core.
 
May 27, 2010
5,181
3
0
timbo25 said:
you know what scares me?
Froome isn't even the cyclist Armstrong was.
Armstrong focused on the tour, scouting every inch of it, riding less one day competition. Froome is careless, not paying attention, falling in corners, wrong gears on the TT bike, forgetting to eat but still winning "the whole freaking year"

If he had the focus of Armstrong, his performance would be "not of this earth"
Odd that Sky overlooked that smallish detail in their marginal gains strategy. :rolleyes:

But, can you imagine how much faster Armstrong could have been if he motorpaced up climbs, instead of just on the flats behind Chris C in Hawaii?



Dave.
 
TheGame said:
So one of the seven, that was my point, which of course I already knew the answer to. I was just making that point. The unknowledgable may think that Yates was glued to Johan's **** for 7 years.
And special congratulations to a great friend, Sean Yates, for leading Sky to the ultimate level of success. I must say, I was a bit unsure if Sky...
From Johan himself... http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/category/radioshack-nissan-trek

Now I someone would post the photos of Yates and Motoman the circle is complete.

Yates just drove the car.... :rolleyes:
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,621
0
0
TheGame said:
So one of the seven, that was my point, which of course I already knew the answer to. I was just making that point. The unknowledgable may think that Yates was glued to Johan's **** for 7 years.
To say that both Froome and Armstrong both had him on the staff is accurate. Why challenge that if you know it's true?

Anyway he worked under Bruyneel for 5 years including 3 Tour wins.
 
Mar 12, 2010
448
0
0
thehog said:
From Johan himself... http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/category/radioshack-nissan-trek

Now I someone would post the photos of Yates and Motoman the circle is complete.

Yates just drove the car.... :rolleyes:
What has that to do with my point? My point is he was only employed by the team for one of the seven victories. I've no idea what your point is (Generally, like your place in this world)

taiwan said:
To say that both Froome and Armstrong both had him on the staff is accurate. Why challenge that if you know it's true?
Im not challenging, im clarifying, he was present for one of Armstrongs 7 wins, and he is not present should Froome win. For the 8 Tour de France won by Armstrong and Froome (Should Froome go on to win), he has been there for one. But 1 out of 8 aint bad
 
TheGame said:
What has that to do with my point? My point is he was only employed by the team for one of the seven victories. I've no idea what your point is (Generally, like your place in this world)
That's the point. You have no point.

Yates and Motoman very happy together. Johan taught him well.

Dawg 20% improvement in power.

Yep. Clean.

What's your point again?
 
ChewbaccaD said:
Then you need to become involved with a profession where millions of dollars are exchanging hands, and watch how quickly almost everyone turns into sharks. I saw if first hand in the US banking industry, and I can tell you that those who were cheating on a large level were cheating on a small level also, and the people who were doing things the right way weren't cheating at all.
I think this is on the money (pun intended). I understand Gooner’s view, but I think what it misses it that just about everyone, when confronted with the stark situation—dope or lose your job—chooses to dope. Guys like Bassons are exceedingly rare. In the wake of LA’s confession, a few former riders have come out and said they didn’t dope and accepted the consequences, but very few.

The evidence we have suggests that doping in most sports is actually much more common than other forms of cheating. Why? Because it’s 1) more effective; 2) easier to get away with; 3) easier to rationalize (dopers generally assume, and almost always correctly, that just about everyone else is doing it concurrently—everyone is not violating some feed rule concurrently); and 4) easier to pretend it’s not a big deal (the cheating part, administering some substance, occurs before the actual competition; once the race starts, you do exactly what you did before, it just happens you can do it better now; when you cheat in other ways, you do it during the actual competition, and it’s obvious while you’re doing it that you’re doing something out of the ordinary).

But maybe most critical, doping is necessary. It creates an environment where you have to dope just to be in the game. The other kinds of cheating generally just provide an edge among players who are going to be in the game regardless. This kind of cheating won't make the difference between a pro-Tour rider and a Continental rider, nor even between a top 10 rider and the yellow jersey. It might help someone move up a place or two, or win a close race.

In this respect, I think doping prior to the EPO revolution was much like another form of cheating. But not any more.
 
Mar 12, 2010
448
0
0
thehog said:
That's the point. You have no point.

Yates and Motoman very happy together. Johan taught him well.

Dawg 20% improvement in power.

Yep. Clean.

What's your point again?
What nonsense. You would have us believe that Yates was a mastermind involved in all seven of Lances victories, and is involved in Froome's victory. You and I both know that is stretching the truth.

But feel free to continue with your four word sentences, diversion, stupidity, and inadequacies.

nb: Do you have a source for this 20% power increase figure?
 
Jul 19, 2013
1
0
0
jamesmasters said:
Sky haven't done what was requested. They have given data from Vuelta 2011 onwards - i.e. exactly the point at which his suspicious performances began. The data might prove that he is doping at a consistent level. Big deal. Let's see the figures from 2009 when he was peloton fodder and about to be dropped by Sky.
Given that sky didn't exist as a team until 2010 it might just prove a little difficult to provide data from 2009 when he was 'peloton fodder and about to be dropped' by them. Just a thought...............
 
Mar 12, 2010
448
0
0
thehog said:
That's the point. You have no point.

Yates and Motoman very happy together. Johan taught him well.

Dawg 20% improvement in power.

Yep. Clean.

What's your point again?
BTW, you still haven't explained why British Cycling would need to approve TUE's for cortisone used out of competition.

BC Don't approve TUE's, Cortisone out of competition doesn't require a TUE. But again, just another one of your grand failures that you responded to with obfuscation and four word sentences.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,621
0
0
TheGame said:
What has that to do with my point? My point is he was only employed by the team for one of the seven victories. I've no idea what your point is (Generally, like your place in this world)



Im not challenging, im clarifying, he was present for one of Armstrongs 7 wins, and he is not present should Froome win. For the 8 Tour de France won by Armstrong and Froome (Should Froome go on to win), he has been there for one. But 1 out of 8 aint bad
Sean Yates associated Tour victories: 1 LA, 2 Berto, 1 Wiggins. You're doing him a disservice.
 
Jul 6, 2012
113
0
0
Froome has the tactical sense of a hammer.

Needlessly pursuing Contador at his overzealous pace on that descent the other day, now this... the guy isn't much of a thinker, is he?
 
Jan 18, 2013
67
0
0
TheEnoculator said:
Remember that unlike Armstrong, Froome never failed a drug test, not even a remotely suspicious sample. So there'll be a lot more Froome supporters than Armstrong had back in the days.

We can only look at what's conceived as ridiculous performance and deduce that Froome is most likely on dope. But Sky would be way above USPS in technologies and a lot more lessons learned. So it's much harder to get concrete dirt on Sky.

Brailsford wasn't so confident in turning over the data for no reason.
You mean like Marion Jones???

She never failed one , did she?
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
King Boonen said:
WADA doesn't have a charter does it??
all you have to do is read wada's documrnts posted to the public. if you dont have a problem with a professional cycling team asking wada to do what it was never set up to do - that is, to act as the global anti-doping body rule setter as opposed to an individual cycling team PR goals and greivances, you have little understanding of what is going on. there i said it.
 
gooner said:
And here is why I disagree using my argument.

Eduardo blatantly cheating against Celtic, smiling and coming out with a BS excuse with Wenger vehemently defending it. Similarly with Pires against Portsmouth. Harry Redknapp, then the Portsmouth manage blasted Pires and was asked would he have no problem if Teddy Sheringham did it for them. He said he probably wouldn't have had. Phil Brown said the same thing when he was Hull manager. That doesn't mean we can say that these managers would also have no problems if there players are doping and especially in the case of Wenger from his past comments. Not one bit of suspicion would I add to anyone here from a doping perspective due to this.

This was similar to Froome today.
Well that would be because in Wenger's case we know there is another barrier in place to stop them from doping. In that individual case you can say the person who cheats another way still may not cheat by doping.

But on a wider level someone who cheats in other ways is more likely to have no problem with doping. Not always but there is a correlation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS