Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 430 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 15, 2012
1,065
0
0
There needs to be a poll --- worst form; froome or gaudin. BTW I'm one of those idiots who take vacation days for the epic mountain stages. worth it for the tifosi alone.
 
Jul 5, 2011
858
0
0
yespatterns said:
There needs to be a poll --- worst form; froome or gaudin. BTW I'm one of those idiots who take vacation days for the epic mountain stages. worth it for the tifosi alone.
As long as your not one of those dudes that run beside riders. And Froome is the most ungainly rider, Gaudin was simply born in the wrong era.
 
Aug 15, 2012
1,065
0
0
rainman said:
As long as your not one of those dudes that run beside riders. And Froome is the most ungainly rider, Gaudin was simply born in the wrong era.
Haha, no, I just perch in front of the tv and keep my speedo wearing shenanigans to myself. And any neighbors lucky enough to catch a peek.
 
Sep 9, 2009
532
0
0
Franklin said:
It's not simply caused because he's skinny, it's also his leg's angle and mostly caused by the construcion of the shoe combined with his shoe cover being the wrong size to accomodate the heel section..
My point: We're supposed to believe that Sky is superior in all ways, they've thought of everything -- but they can't get a proper size for their undisputed leader's shoe covers? If sleeping with a special pillow = marginal gains, then having crap shoe covers = marginal losses.

Also, Dear D!ckhole, I've worn shoe covers, thanks. Your insight continues to amaze.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
filipo said:
My point: We're supposed to believe that Sky is superior in all ways, they've thought of everything -- but they can't get a proper size for their undisputed leader's shoe covers? If sleeping with a special pillow = marginal gains, then having crap shoe covers = marginal losses.
good point.
however, with that shoe size you might catch more of the tailwind.
could be a marginal gain after all.
 
pastronef said:
cycling fans are strange.

that July race: I cannot think about NOT watching the Tour de France. any rider could win, go full genius, suck, fall, troll us, loose chunk of time, flip us the bird etc...
The whole point of this sub-forum is that there are riders chosen to win. What we know for sure is the UCI doesn't enforce positives and ASO is having meetings with teams, altering courses to suit riders and more.

What we don't know is how and why riders/teams are chosen.
 
DirtyWorks said:
The whole point of this sub-forum is that there are riders chosen to win. What we know for sure is the UCI doesn't enforce positives and ASO is having meetings with teams, altering courses to suit riders and more.

What we don't know is how and why riders/teams are chosen.
Really? Blimey. That would involve so many co-conspirators and teams happy to just make up the numbers whilst spending vast sums of money that the mind boggles.

I thought this forum was "crowd" scrutiny of cycling performances to out cheats...or at least to cast aspersions upon riders/teams that you don't care much for.

And this thread, in particular, was for aspersion casting in the direction of Chris Froome.
 
armchairclimber said:
Really? Blimey. That would involve so many co-conspirators and teams happy to just make up the numbers whilst spending vast sums of money that the mind boggles.
Hmm. Well, I better ignore this:
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf

and this: http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/13/lance-armstrong-bought-win-roberto-gaggioli/

and this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488

and this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/01/17/hein-verbruggen-defends-money-link-lance-armstrong-team/1842201/

What has changed besides the names?
 
ebandit said:
so we could just insert froomeys name in any headline we read such as
'rider x dopes' just because it's convenient for you

............right!

Mark L
So instead of addressing/examining/discussing the litany of incriminating evidence contained in those links, you whine about Froome and cast unfounded insults at the messenger.

Fantastic contribution. We're all better for reading it.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Firstly, you are off topic (as is much of this thread).
Secondly, the simple response to your post is that Armstrong has been busted.
Thirdly, there is some way betweeen suspecting certain riders of doping...even of suspecting that various agencies are turning a blind eye, and actually believing that A WINNER is picked from the pack and given the victory. There's a race. Some are good. Some are better. Some cheat. That's the way it is. I don't think there's a master plan....more a retrospective "flippin heck, can't have this hitting the front page".

ANYWAY, FROOME. Dirty Works seems to think he is a pre-ordained winner. I think he looks joint favourite with Contador myself.
 
armchairclimber said:
Firstly, you are off topic (as is much of this thread).
Secondly, the simple response to your post is that Armstrong has been busted.
Thirdly, there is some way betweeen suspecting certain riders of doping...even of suspecting that various agencies are turning a blind eye, and actually believing that A WINNER is picked from the pack and given the victory. There's a race. Some are good. Some are better. Some cheat. That's the way it is. I don't think there's a master plan....more a retrospective "flippin heck, can't have this hitting the front page".

ANYWAY, FROOME. Dirty Works seems to think he is a pre-ordained winner. I think he looks joint favourite with Contador myself.
Dirty Works seems to think that the UCI and powers that be have a record of protecting certain riders and it's not restricted to Armstrong, and wonders why should we trust any unbelievable performances which have always turned out to be...well...unbelievable.

Wondering why people don't seem to get that from the thread. Seemed obvious.
 
red_flanders said:
Dirty Works seems to think that the UCI and powers that be have a record of protecting certain riders and it's not restricted to Armstrong, and wonders why should we trust any unbelievable performances which have always turned out to be...well...unbelievable.

Wondering why people don't seem to get that from the thread. Seemed obvious.
Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust

I mean, I could go on and on...

If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
 
armchairclimber said:
Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust

I mean, I could go on and on...

If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
To be fair it wasn't the UCI that bust Hincapie, Leipheimmer or Armstrong.

We do know that the UCI warned at least one rider on that list to tone down their doping though.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
armchairclimber said:
Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust

I mean, I could go on and on...

If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
UCI didn't bust Rasmussen or Ullrich either.

So UCI bust Vino and Landis. Now that really is a good strike rate, methinketh:rolleyes:, never mind UCI hiding Contador's positive till a decent journalist spilled the beans.

UCI protection works and works very well.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
red_flanders said:
So instead of addressing/examining/discussing the litany of incriminating evidence contained in those links, you whine about Froome and cast unfounded insults at the messenger.

Fantastic contribution. We're all better for reading it.
Well, Froome's name is in the thread title, so it's arguably a more useful contribution than a series of links about a completely different rider.

But, hell, let's not let facts rule a good yap.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Benotti69 said:
UCI didn't bust Rasmussen or Ullrich either.
The question isn't who they busted. It's who they protected. So yapping that it wasn't the UCI busting is irrelevant. That fact remains, the so-called protection sucked.

So UCI bust Vino and Landis. Now that really is a good strike rate, methinketh:rolleyes:, never mind UCI hiding Contador's positive till a decent journalist spilled the beans.

UCI protection works and works very well.
It didn't work for those riders, did it?
 
Apr 8, 2014
408
0
0
If Froome is found to be doping, serves a ban and then returns, what will be people's perception of him? If he then rides with the grupetto, does this validate the likes of Contador and Valverde as genuine talents, doped or not?
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Nathan12 said:
If Froome is found to be doping, serves a ban and then returns, what will be people's perception of him? If he then rides with the grupetto, does this validate the likes of Contador and Valverde as genuine talents, doped or not?
What an odd question. If froome is a doper, he's a doper. WE know the other two are dopers, the best we can hope for is that they are ex dopers. One is not dependent on the other.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
martinvickers said:
The question isn't who they busted. It's who they protected.

<snipped trolling>

It didn't work for those riders, did it?
Last time i looked RevSaysNo, the UCI does not have more powers than police forces.

The suspicion is Landis was busted on Armstrongs say so, so that would illustrate the UCI at work, protecting Armstrong, hell, UCI were still trying to protect Armstrong when he no longer had a UCI licence.

McQuaid had no problem telling the media half way through the '12 TdF that the Sky party in Paris was going to big.......:rolleyes:

2007 Tour de France doping cases, French prosecutors wanted to start a legal case against Vinokourov, Mayo and Moreni, and requested the UCI to hand over the doping samples. The UCI refused to give them, and in May 2011 the investigation was stopped
UCI protect even the dopers :D
 

stutue

BANNED
Apr 22, 2014
875
0
0
Benotti69 said:
The suspicion is Landis was busted on Armstrongs say so, so that would illustrate the UCI at work, protecting Armstrong, hell, UCI were still trying to protect Armstrong when he no longer had a UCI licence.
Whose suspicion is that? Anybody whose opinion affords respect?

Personally, I think that is a ridiculous notion for a whole host of reasons, but I'd be interested to hear what the rationale is behind it.
 
armchairclimber said:
Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust

I mean, I could go on and on...

If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
umm major iq fail or what.

When the UCI protection does work, you never hear about it.

When it doesn't you do.

So you list the riders for which it hasn't work, since you have their names, and then proudly declare that 100% of riders who get UCI protection ended up busted. :cool:

lol:D

On another note, here is armchairclimber's contribution to the Crime and Justice forums:
Every person in prison committed a crime. Therefore every person who ever committed a crime ended up in prison.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS