Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Hugh Januss]

I didn't say it was wrong to criticise Ms. Cound, but that is okay because you rarely get the drift of any comment anyway. I did find the vicious vitriol that accompanied Clinic comments about her distasteful.

You on the other hand have an sordid history of baiting, slagging and insults, so I am sure you found it amusing for her to be equated in the Clinic to a ***.

In your case your self described aphorism, that you are "such dicks" fits.

Your hysterical rants and insults are exactly what is wrong with the Clinic.

Whatever...............dicks

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yes shame on you, you should have said "such a nice lady, you can tell she really loves her Chris, nothing bad she says about anyone should be criticized in any way, no matter how personal or out of control she gets, because she has the I love Chris get out of jail free card". You guys are such dicks to judge her or any public statements she makes.

I think Canuck made a well thought and formed post, I agree 100% with...
OTOH, I like your answer in a way that you a.) got your post trou the filter with the word "dicks", and b.) didn´t go in the personal attack mode, but called all the critics of the clinic "you guys are...". I can live with that, the mods can. All good.
But the most I like your sig... that shows me you don´t take the stuff to serious, which is a (seldom to find here) quality in itself.



Edit: OK, I got it. **** is not allowed, but dicks. Didn´t know the filter was that easy to manipulate...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The End

.....

Put your head in the sand Mr. Sarcasm. My five year old granddaughter has better semantics and syntax than you!

Again you are just another troll who fails to address the substance or what I had to say about the viciousness of the comments in the Clinic toward Ms. Cound. I suppose you too equate her to a *** as Sceptic did!

You should be really proud of yourself as another one of those anonymous self righteous posters in here. It is easy to hide behind a rock (or under one)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I didn't say it was wrong to criticise Ms. Cound, but that is okay because you rarely get the drift of any comment anyway. I did find the vicious vitriol that accompanied Clinic comments about her distasteful.

You on the other hand have an sordid history of baiting, slagging and insults, so I am sure you found it amusing for her to be equated in the Clinic to a ***.

In your case your self described aphorism, that you are "such dicks" fits.

Your hysterical rants and insults are exactly what is wrong with the Clinic.

But he is a more soft version. You should expierience "the sceptic" in full *** mode if you don´t agree with his murky POV of reality.... Hugh is kind in comparison.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I would say that GT was hard for all... Both performances are unusal..

Nit picking just a bit, 18 minutes apart isn't really comparable. Froome created much more power/recovery than the slower rider.

 

[Digger]

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.

To most of your post thank you...and also you defended me in the past when people said I spoke disrespectfully towards Fran Millar...You pointed out that in your eyes I hadn't done anything of the sort on that occasion.

However to the bold, I would argue that point. There was one day she drew comparisons, in my eyes, between Froome and Mandela and what they had to put up with. Yes that definitely draw my derision.


This isn't really to you Martin in fairness, it's more a general point. I am no angel. I have given plenty crap to people like JV, Bradley, David mIllar, Doug Ellis etc etc...but there is an idea out there that I have spoken abusively to Fran and Michelle. And it's something I genuinely would dispute.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Nit picking just a bit, 18 minutes apart isn't really comparable. Froome created much more power/recovery than the slower rider.

It´s 9 minutes... (8.44 for DearWiggo), even less if we discount the boni...
9 minutes over 49 mountains isn´t much at all.
Those GTs were won by 9 mins in the not too long ago past...

 

[Merckx index]

Merckx, Merckx, Merckx

Do you have exact power numbers for all riders in question? Do you? Of course you don´t. So all we can do is working with the results we have and make comparisons... No exact science, but better than nothing.

As I pointed out before, we do have power numbers for Froome, pre and post 2011. Not exact, but these data are far better than placings in GTs. If you can't find them for the other riders you're trying to compare Froome with, or don't want to bother looking for them, you shouldn't make the comparison.

Saying that some approach is “better than nothing” is not a justification. Sure, you might get some rough idea of which riders improved from one year to the next, but you don’t have any idea how much performance improvement was involved, and without that, you really can’t compare these riders to those for whom power data are available.

How would you feel if some auto magazine listed the HP of some cars, and then for the others said, well, we don’t know their HP, but we know where they finished in some races?

 

[RownhamHill]

Relax, beno, it was just banter

Very much this Benotti, apologies no offence intended

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As I pointed out before, we do have power numbers for Froome, pre and post 2011. Not exact, but these data are far better than placings in GTs. If you can't find them for the other riders you're trying to compare Froome with, or don't want to bother looking for them, you shouldn't make the comparison.

Saying that some approach is “better than nothing” is not a justification. Sure, you might get some rough idea of which riders improved from one year to the next, but you don’t have any idea how much performance improvement was involved, and without that, you really can’t compare these riders to those for whom power data are available.

How would you feel if some auto magazine listed the HP of some cars, and then for the others said, well, we don’t know their HP, but we know where they finished in some races?

TBH, most of time I didn´t follow those long science posts. I don´t mean that negative or offending. I just don´t know much about it, thus would fail miserable in a contest with you. All I know is that W/Kg seems the way to go, but I also know that this approach fails most time when posters have their shouting matches over the weight of a rider to get correct W/Kg numbers. Add in the fights about tailwinds, length of stages, guessing weights, temperatures, slipstream, it all becomes a big "mischmasch"...
I am sorry but I can´t be convinced that such uncertain datas shall be better than hard facts like placings and times. I mean cycling is easy. You go from A to B, the strongest wins in MTFs or ITTs. You get a pretty good idea of who improves or declines by how much. It isn´t the NFL where 11 players interact with individual stats.
And finally (even if I would crasp all that W/Kg stuff completely), I am really not willing to sift trou the internet to get (if that´s possible at all) Lagutins or Pinottis W/Kg numbers, only to get flak 5 minutes later (after my done hard work) by a poster who would say "hey Foxxy your post is BS, b/c you didn´t count for the wind and the listed kg is wrong"...

P.S.: Q @ admins; We approach the 10.000th post here. Did cycnews improve and finally have a gift for the lucky guy? At least something small...

 

[martinvickers]

To most of your post thank you...and also you defended me in the past when people said I spoke disrespectfully towards Fran Millar...You pointed out that in your eyes I hadn't done anything of the sort on that occasion.

However to the bold, I would argue that point. There was one day she drew comparisons, in my eyes, between Froome and Mandela and what they had to put up with. Yes that definitely draw my derision.


This isn't really to you Martin in fairness, it's more a general point. I am no angel. I have given plenty crap to people like JV, Bradley, David mIllar, Doug Ellis etc etc...but there is an idea out there that I have spoken abusively to Fran and Michelle. And it's something I genuinely would dispute.

I personally felt you crept up to the line of abusive - you were certainly, shall we say, scathing and maybe a little troll-y - but you certainly didn't ever really full on cross it, and I think that's important - I did get very annoyed at some of the "brits " sarcasm and bit back hard, probably far too hard in retrospect, but I think (hope) that's water under the bridge now.

Personally, I think you trolled them a bit - but you didn't abuse them. Not remotely in the way we are discussing; you are better than that.

Nonetheless, the hateful crap you went through yourself was a wake up call for me on some issues, as you know, and our recent decent humour with each other is, I hope, aun unexpected but welcome side effect of that.

As for the scummy stuff suffered by too many, yourself included, people need to catch a grip.

 

[Digger]

I personally felt you crept up to the line of abusive - you were certainly, shall we say, scathing and maybe a little troll-y - but you certainly didn't ever really full on cross it, and I think that's important - I did get very annoyed at some of the "brits " sarcasm and bit back hard, probably far too hard in retrospect, but I think (hope) that's water under the bridge now.

Personally, I think you trolled them a bit - but you didn't abuse them. Not remotely in the way we are discussing; you are better than that.

Nonetheless, the hateful crap you went through yourself was a wake up call for me on some issues, as you know, and our recent decent humour with each other is, I hope, aun unexpected but welcome side effect of that.

As for the scummy stuff suffered by too many, yourself included, people need to catch a grip.

I honestly would like to see examples of this. Or if not the tweet, you can paraphrase.

Regarding the 'Brits' thing...well for me where that criticism of me falls down is people forgetting that I have had a go a people from a whole host of nations. Long before Sky came along...and even since.

 

[RownhamHill]

I think it's long time we all stopped engaging people who are making consistently nonsensical arguments. Clearly no rational thought is going to make a difference, and offering such just provides a platform for more nonsense.

Couldn't agree more, it's a promise I make to myself every few weeks.

And then some of the nonsense just draws me back in. . .

 

[martinvickers]

I honestly would like to see examples of this. Or if not the tweet, you can paraphrase.

The obvious one was one having a dig at Fran Millar about her brother. You probably remember it. Thought that crept close to the line - but it was the trollery line, not the outright disgusting abuse line, it was nowhere near that. I didn't like it, and said so at the time. But what Cound, and You for that matter, endured was many, many degrees worse. no comparison, and whatever our disagreements, I'll defend you on that. (what happened you and yours sickened me, as you know)

Regarding the 'Brits' thing...well for me where that criticism of me falls down is people forgetting that I have had a go a people from a whole host of nations. Long before Sky came along...and even since.

Given some of the Nico-sceptic stuff I've seen since, I can accept that now.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Can you guys maybe create a "Digger's tweets and why Martin thinks we care what he thinks" thread or something?

 

[RownhamHill]

I got the impression more and more posters are already doing that.

That or they've been banned for trolling. . .

 

[timmers]

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.

Unfortunately this is where a poster who is often informative makes a mistake by trying to legitimize their view. Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

 

[martinvickers]

Can you guys maybe create a "Digger's tweets and why Martin thinks we care what he thinks" thread or something?

Ignore button is your friend. I'm not.

I don't care what you think about my posts, and frankly I don't care if you read my posts. So feel free not to.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Unfortunately this is where a poster who is often informative makes a mistake by trying to legitimize their view. Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

Ullrich competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete in the 2005 Tour de Suisse, so his win was legitimate and ... wait, he's no longer the winner? Legitimate win was legitimately taken away from him though no-one could've had legitimate reasons to even doubt him?

(thought I'd use another example than Armstrong for once!)

 

[Nathan12]

Unfortunately this is where a poster who is often informative makes a mistake by trying to legitimize their view. Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

Semantics are the only defence you people have got.

 

[veganrob]

Unfortunately this is where a poster who is often informative makes a mistake by trying to legitimize their view. Froome has competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete so by definition his TdF win is legitimate so you cannot have legitimate reasons to doubt him!!!

Exactly. Why on earth would anyone doubt the integrity of the UCI?

 

[RownhamHill]

Ullrich competed and passed all the UCI requirements to compete in the 2005 Tour de Suisse, so his win was legitimate and ... wait, he's no longer the winner? Legitimate win was legitimately taken away from him though no-one could've had legitimate reasons to even doubt him?

(thought I'd use another example than Armstrong for once!)

Semantics are the only defence you people have got.

Erm, guys, I think timmers post was meant to be read with your tongue in your cheek. . .

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Reading too much EnacheV and FoxxxxxxyBrown posts made me think he was serious

 

[timmers]

To most of your post thank you...and also you defended me in the past when people said I spoke disrespectfully towards Fran Millar...You pointed out that in your eyes I hadn't done anything of the sort on that occasion.

However to the bold, I would argue that point. There was one day she drew comparisons, in my eyes, between Froome and Mandela and what they had to put up with. Yes that definitely draw my derision.


This isn't really to you Martin in fairness, it's more a general point. I am no angel. I have given plenty crap to people like JV, Bradley, David mIllar, Doug Ellis etc etc...but there is an idea out there that I have spoken abusively to Fran and Michelle. And it's something I genuinely would dispute.

The issue I have with your approach is that you appear to not be a cyclist, live in a third world country, believe that every professional cyclist cheats and that Kimmage (who doped) is a saint. You have no gray. It's not black and white and the interesting aspect of Froome as a professional cyclist is that he made it to the elite level from a non-cycling country, struggled and then succeeded when he was going to lose his contract. Your view appears to be that he is cheating. If so what is he doing and how is he getting away with it? I would like to know as it appears that unlike you I am a UCI licenced cyclist and I think all licenced riders must follow the rules.

To help you with your reply I have some questions based on some of the views expressed on here:

If Leinders is so good for Froome why was Rabobank sh*t?
Why has no one come forward with any dirt?
Brailsford must have pi**ed people off. Where are they?
Maybe Froome is an Outlier?
What if the doping culture from the 90's has distorted the elite cycling population so that the dopers performance under restricted doping has taken their level below clean cyclists who have not doped?
My view is that like what has happened in Italy and Spain is that secrets don't get kept so if Froome and others on Sky are on some special juice people will know. Where are they?

Cheers

PS are you a minor as you name and antics suggest that?

 

[Nathan12]

The issue I have with your approach is that you appear to not be a cyclist, live in a third country, believe that every professional cyclist cheats and that Kimmage (who doped) is a saint. You have no gray. It's not black and white and the interesting aspect of Froome as a professional cyclist is that he made it to the elite level from a non-cycling country, struggled and then succeeded when he was going to lose his contract. Your view appears to be that he is cheating. If so what is he doing and how is he getting away with it? I would like to know as it appears that unlike you I am a UCI licenced cyclist and I think all licenced riders must follow the rules.

To help you with your reply I have some questions based on some of the views expressed on here:

If Leinders is so good for Froome why was Rabobank ****?
Why has no one come forward with any dirt?
Brailsford must have ****ed people off. Where are they?
Maybe Froome is an Outlier?
What if the doping culture from the 90's has distorted the elite cycling population so that the dopers performance under restricted doping has taken their level below clean cyclists who have not doped?
My view is that like what has happened in Italy and Spain is that secrets don't get kept so if Froome and others on Sky are on some special juice people will know. Where are they?

Cheers

PS are you a minor as you name and antics suggest that?

Ummm...Rabobank weren't ****. Rasmussen was about to win the 2007 Tour before the **** hit the fan. FWIW I think Leinders is is a diversion from the bigger story. But he certainly helped Rasmussen.