Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 410 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

EnacheV

BANNED
Jul 7, 2013
1,441
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Chris Froome seems to be doing a pros job on the doping front. His Mrs is doing an Armstrong on it, without the court cases. Probably because Froome doesn't have the money behind him that Armstrong had otherwise lots of lawyers letters from Mrs Froome would be arriving........
i think you are a little cluelless on the legal front

Froome could shut this place down in 1 sec, with minimal costs. he is not doing it because the negative publicity would be enourmous.

the reason legal letters are not arriving is not financial.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
EnacheV said:
i think you are a little cluelless on the legal front

Froome could shut this place down in 1 sec, with minimal costs. he is not doing it because the negative publicity would be enourmous.

the reason legal letters are not arriving is not financial.
And you're an expert on the legal front?

Why would there be lots of negative publicity if Froome shut this place down? I thought there was only 12 people who posted/read the stuff in the clinic?

Again the reason for the 'legal letters not arriving' are?
 
The article makes a very nice bit of sleight of hand there.

Her remarks triggered slurs by twisted trolls that 28-year-old Chris’s success was down to performance-enhancing drugs.
Very good. The problem is:
- people were saying Froome's success was down to PEDs long before her comments, and will be saying it long after her comments are forgotten
- her comments DID result in a series of slurs from "twisted trolls", but let's be clear, the claims that Froome is doping are NOT the comments of twisted trolls, but the comments of sceptics.
- the comments worthy of the description of coming from "twisted trolls" are the threats of death and of rape. If they are meant in jest, then these people have a terrible sense of what is funny and acceptable in humour. If they are meant with any seriousness, people need to get a grip and/or seen to.
- although clearly the people who were making the threats of death and/or rape do doubt Froome, otherwise why would they have been attacking Michelle Cound on twitter, but that also does not excuse a newspaper, no matter how poor, painting all of the people who don't believe Froome is the all-singing all-dancing superhero they'd like to paint him as, as being the same kind of people who would threaten a woman with rape because they disagree with them, isn't really acceptable either - just less obviously unacceptable than the abuse Michelle has been facing.

Sure, she sometimes needs to get a grip, calm down and step back from the keyboard as much as many of the most argumentative types here. But there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Chris Froome and plenty of legitimate ways to express that - and many of us both here and elsewhere have done so - without recourse to the kind of abuse that Michelle has taken on this. And I resent it being implied that because I also doubt Chris Froome that I am among those who have been attacking her in such a manner.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
And I resent it being implied that because I also doubt Chris Froome that I am among those who have been attacking her in such a manner.
Which is the point of that kind of response. It's a multi-pronged attack to silence/discredit the person(s) that disagree. It works pretty well too.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
The article makes a very nice bit of sleight of hand there.



Very good. The problem is:
- people were saying Froome's success was down to PEDs long before her comments, and will be saying it long after her comments are forgotten
- her comments DID result in a series of slurs from "twisted trolls", but let's be clear, the claims that Froome is doping are NOT the comments of twisted trolls, but the comments of sceptics.
- the comments worthy of the description of coming from "twisted trolls" are the threats of death and of rape. If they are meant in jest, then these people have a terrible sense of what is funny and acceptable in humour. If they are meant with any seriousness, people need to get a grip and/or seen to.
- although clearly the people who were making the threats of death and/or rape do doubt Froome, otherwise why would they have been attacking Michelle Cound on twitter, but that also does not excuse a newspaper, no matter how poor, painting all of the people who don't believe Froome is the all-singing all-dancing superhero they'd like to paint him as, as being the same kind of people who would threaten a woman with rape because they disagree with them, isn't really acceptable either - just less obviously unacceptable than the abuse Michelle has been facing.

Sure, she sometimes needs to get a grip, calm down and step back from the keyboard as much as many of the most argumentative types here. But there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Chris Froome and plenty of legitimate ways to express that - and many of us both here and elsewhere have done so - without recourse to the kind of abuse that Michelle has taken on this. And I resent it being implied that because I also doubt Chris Froome that I am among those who have been attacking her in such a manner.
Yeah, but its the daily star. Anyone who reads that rag is already on the - Brits don't dope, side of the discussion.
 
Benotti69 said:
Chris Froome seems to be doing a pros job on the doping front. His Mrs is doing an Armstrong on it, without the court cases. Probably because Froome doesn't have the money behind him that Armstrong had otherwise lots of lawyers letters from Mrs Froome would be arriving........



maybe she hasn't checked the butter dish in the fridge, because most of the other wags were part of the doping. :rolleyes:
To be fair I don't think Froome or Michelle will have had much to do with that, it's literally a copy and paste of the tweets presented as 'news' - churnalism at its most vapid (notwithstanding the two lines of description that has got Libertine hot under the collar).

It's no better (or worse) than the same tweets being posted here on Tuesday, though I suppose you could point out that the Clinic is now 'trumping' the Daily Star as a news outlet.

The more important question to my mind is what the hell are you doing on the Daily Star website in the first place Benotti?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Netserk said:
What relevance does that have with Hitch's post?
All and everything. He sees it like I do. A big circus going on here since the informative golden LA days are gone... Canuck got it , others didn´t. Why you blame the messenger?
 
Jun 10, 2013
19
0
0
Release everything

Some posters claim that releasing data would not help Froome nor Sky.

Imagine what an image Sky and Froome would paint if they truly were transparent, and not only released some data, but let all of us download all the data, ranging from blood values, v02, srm etc. So one could comment on it and ask important questions. That would not only be transparancy but setting the baseline for other teams to do the same. Open Source it if you're being serious about the clean peloton statement, or takenthe heat, and deal with it.

Another thing I still haven't understood is Froome's bilzahria illness. What is the treatment, who treated him, how many times, what does the treatment do tonhis blood values, his body and fitness ? Facts ?

I have a very hard time understanding M.Cound and the way she would go off on twitter like that. To me it is not only unprofessional by her but by the team managing Froome. Froome and Sky laying name to a woman whose shoots at everything and clearly has no sense of how to act with the media. What is Sky saying about this ? If nothing, it's so amateur'ish and even worse than the russian over at Tinkov.

As to the transformation with Froome, it is a serious matter and it strikes me, that not a single media is digging harder into this. Ask questions, demand answers. It sometimes leave me thinking that we should all pitch into a kickstarter.com project which goal merely should be to fund a journo going to races and ask questions.

Goo night gents
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
The article makes a very nice bit of sleight of hand there.



Very good. The problem is:
- people were saying Froome's success was down to PEDs long before her comments, and will be saying it long after her comments are forgotten
- her comments DID result in a series of slurs from "twisted trolls", but let's be clear, the claims that Froome is doping are NOT the comments of twisted trolls, but the comments of sceptics.
- the comments worthy of the description of coming from "twisted trolls" are the threats of death and of rape. If they are meant in jest, then these people have a terrible sense of what is funny and acceptable in humour. If they are meant with any seriousness, people need to get a grip and/or seen to.
- although clearly the people who were making the threats of death and/or rape do doubt Froome, otherwise why would they have been attacking Michelle Cound on twitter, but that also does not excuse a newspaper, no matter how poor, painting all of the people who don't believe Froome is the all-singing all-dancing superhero they'd like to paint him as, as being the same kind of people who would threaten a woman with rape because they disagree with them, isn't really acceptable either - just less obviously unacceptable than the abuse Michelle has been facing.

Sure, she sometimes needs to get a grip, calm down and step back from the keyboard as much as many of the most argumentative types here. But there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Chris Froome and plenty of legitimate ways to express that - and many of us both here and elsewhere have done so - without recourse to the kind of abuse that Michelle has taken on this. And I resent it being implied that because I also doubt Chris Froome that I am among those who have been attacking her in such a manner.
They also failed to mention her dig at "Maybe an ex-doper will win the Tour", which is what sparked all the uproar and threats of bodily harm in the first place.

Like I said a few pages back: don't troll the Internet and expect to get nothing in return - that's your self entitled spoilt brat self shining through.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Wait, you, the one who said they could name riders who had had transformations comparable to Froome since 2010, thought you would have to go back to 1900ish? It's almost as if you realised you wouldn't be able to do so, and so your claim was, in fact, a needless exaggeration!

(although Pinotti's transformation happened in 2008, so still wouldn't meet your previous criteria)

So wait, you're saying going from 18th in a GT to 9th in the course of three years is as extreme a jump as going from being disqualified (while lying 104th on GC) for holding on to a car to only losing on bonus seconds, in 16 months?

My personal opinion is that there was less reason to believe Lance than there is to believe Sky (while both may be equally suspicious performance-wise, and Sky may be as transparent as a brick wall, there were more definite no-smoke-without-fire indicators with Lance than there are with Sky at a comparable point in their success), but there was more reason for fans to want to believe Lance and to go the extra mile to defend his reputation thanks to the feel-good story and the much-publicised charity figure that he became.
The "1900ish" was meant for Granville when we had some discussion weeks ago, it had nothing to do with the "2010+ topic" of now. You could not have known that if you wasn´t there that time. Now you know it.

Yop Pinotti doesn´t count, b/c pre-2010. I thought you would make a exception. ;)
With Pinottis jump I didn´t mean going from 18 to 9, but going from averge 68th (pre his 30s) to 18th to 9th, to public statement at 36; "I go for a T-10".
Froome OTOH jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. Is that unusual? ****ing yeah. But unprecedented? No.
What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?
You guys do your cherry picking, I do mine. :)
In the end of the day, we had many unusal results from many riders the past years, not only from one rider who gets the blame for everything.
... At least Froomes transformation came in his low 20s.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Danielovich said:
Some posters claim that releasing data would not help Froome nor Sky.

Imagine what an image Sky and Froome would paint if they truly were transparent, and not only released some data, but let all of us download all the data, ranging from blood values, v02, srm etc...
It would backfire badly. A disaster, even if the numbers would be ok (whatever that means). Just have a look at CH last year (not that I didn´t like his disaster :D)
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Froome OTOH jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. Is that unusual? ****ing yeah. But unprecedented? No.
What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?
You guys do your cherry picking, I do mine. :)
In the end of the day, we had many unusal results from many riders the past years, not only from one rider who gets the blame for everything.
... At least Froomes transformation came in his low 20s.
And who said Lagutin is clean? He isn't exactly demolishing people and making the doped heroes of yesteryear look like utter scrubs either, which is part of why Froome gets it in the neck so much (and also, of course, because he's so dominant it makes it almost pointless to watch much of the time and his performance level, along with Sky's stifling tactics, surgically remove all of the unpredictability that people like about sport and that keeps them tuning in, so many - myself included - resent that aspect of them). Sky riding everybody off their wheel USPS style and making races predictable and frustrating, all the while saying "we're clean, believe us" and having guys like Froome who have undergone these huge transformations yet only doing the bare minimum token gestures towards transparency makes them a figure of fun; Saxo, Lampre, Movistar etc. aren't posturing "100% clean zero tolerance", which means they don't look quite so comically hypocritical when Valverde or Contador start riding like jet propelled.

Lagutin also gets less attention, like Pinotti before him and Tiralongo as well, because riding himself to an anonymous top 10 where he barely appeared in the front group at all and mostly just arrived riding his own race behind the front bunch strangely enough doesn't raise the viewer's attention in the same manner as getting on the front and dropping GT winners at will without leaving the saddle, or riding off into the distance putting in times on major mountains that match Armstrong's peak powers. It's also easier and more immediately believable when improving one's climbing to bury oneself in the pack and use others' pacing for much of the climb, letting go before you go into the red and riding a controlled climb away from the TV cameras, than to ride on the front of the favourites group drilling it from base to summit dropping them one after another.

Of course, you know all that, but hey, why not go round the circuit one more time? I mean, Le Mans is a better race than Monaco.

Also, I argue that 26 is not "low 20s".
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
BYOP88 said:
Martin, not all of us have 24 hours a day to surf the web. Can you direct me to these threats that Cound got?

Also just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean your **** smells better than anyone else's in here. You seem to think you can be as acerbic as you want to people in here, but you throw the toys out of the stroller if someone dares to take an acerbic tone with you.
1. Ball, not man.

2. The threats were described on this forum only a few posts ago. As you well know.

3. You've got cause and effect the wrong way round. If my *** smells better, it's not because of my profession. More likely, I'm in my profession because my *** smells better. Whatever the hell that means, since I clearly never implied my *** smells better.

4. I don't mind acerbic. Acerbic suggests sharp. What I'd object to is blunt trollery.

5. If you are offended on my position that there is no moral equivalence between a sarcastic tweet on an acknowledged ex doper, and rape and murder threats, that's an offence I'm just going to have to learn to live with. I'm pretty sure i'll manage.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Froome OTOH jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. Is that unusual? ****ing yeah. But unprecedented? No.

What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?

You guys do your cherry picking, I do mine. :)
Not only is it cherry picking. Here's my analysis of your analysis:

1. Froome went to 2nd in his low 20s. Um no. 26 1/3 is not low 20s. It's mid twenties at least.
2. Froome's GT was (implied) a "normal hardness" GT. Um no. It's exactly the same GT Lagutin finished 9 minutes down on, the one you label "super hard".
3. You compare average position to absolute position. Um. No. Compare averages, or compare absolutes. % improvement, etc isn't working too well, imo.
4. You feel it pertinent to add 3/4 to Lagutin's age, but miss off the 1/3 for Froome's.
5. You compare average position for Lagutin, to absolute time from winner as indication of improvement. Um. What the feck dude. That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to pink VW automobiles.
6. Your idea of a "super hard GT" is somewhat ... interesting. For my money, a GT's hardness would be evidenced in how closely the top ~20 riders finished together, assuming there are 20 teams, and their leaders are all vying for top placings. In 2011, top 20 ended 20 minutes down at the Vuelta. In the 2013 Tour, which Froome won by over 4 minutes, top 20 is over 40 minutes down. (Granted some teams are there for non-GC reasons, obviously, but I'd like to see at least some form of definition for GT difficulty before accepting your labeling of same).

Your analysis needs work. ;)

ETA: And you wonder why people think you believe Froome is clean, or you are defending Froome. Eesh!
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Digger said:
Firstly this is the second time you made this reference today. First time was directly to me...So please specify what I said on twitter which was trolling...

It seems to me that you are trying to lump me in with the Contador fans who were tweeting her this week.

So anyway seen as you are quick to reference my twitter, please give examples where I have trolled her.
You did give Cound a good going over in the past. You went a bit near the line on occasion. But I have to say, you never went near these levels of pure vileness; not even close, so I'll have to defend you on that.

Rape threats aren't trolling, or even pestering; they're something much more vile.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Digger said:
Martin, I have no issue with you today or this week.

However I would hope you take on board what BYOP said just above.

You seem to think you can speak as acerbically or patronising as you like, but if someone gives it back, then you don't like it...and that's fine if you want it that way, but don't get too p***ed off when someone retorts in the same manner.
Ascerbic suggests sharp. I don't mind sharp; occasionally I even deserve it.

Pure trollery isn't sharp; it's pretty dam^ blunt.

I found the equating of a sarcastic anti-contador tweet, if that's what it even was, with rape threats unsustainable. It may have been an inadvertant, or passing, equating, but it was there. I'm not suggesting BYOP actually indulged in it, only that I think he's a bit blazé about it, purely because he doesn't really like the victim much.

And you'll note I've just defended you from a similar unfairly blazé 'equating'. I'm equal opportunities on that sh!te! :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts