Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[sniper]

Why is Froome protected and not JTL? Why specifically Froome with his big leap and not Thomas going on to be a GT winner so?

Why wasn't Santambrogio protected? Does this logic only apply to Sky?

The Italian authorities contacted the UCI about him and they then target tested him for the first week of the Giro. That happened on McQuaid's watch.

You can't just say because of what happened with Contador and Armstrong that every rider is protected similarly. In the case of Contador, the attempt of protection was useless anyway.

Lets actually deal with what we have, than the tabloid speculation in respect of Froome being protected. To even do this now, you would have to at least have some back up to say Cookson is of similar ilk to McQuaid and Verbruggen. That can't be said at this time.

let's not be naive, and let's not put forward too many strawmen (see netserk's and wiggo's replies).
wrt cookson, from day 1 he's had a serious conflict of interest.
i think that qualifies as "some back up".

 

[red_flanders]

Why is Froome protected and not JTL? Why specifically Froome with his big leap and not Thomas going on to be a GT winner so?

Why wasn't Santambrogio protected? Does this logic only apply to Sky?

The Italian authorities contacted the UCI about him and they then target tested him for the first week of the Giro. That happened on McQuaid's watch.

You can't just say because of what happened with Contador and Armstrong that every rider is protected similarly. In the case of Contador, the attempt of protection was useless anyway.

Lets actually deal with what we have, than the tabloid speculation in respect of Froome being protected. To even do this now, you would have to at least have some back up to say Cookson is of similar ilk to McQuaid and Verbruggen. That can't be said at this time.

Why was Armstrong protected and not Hamilton?

Money.

 

[The Hitch]

Of course! If Spilak can catch him, I think AC and other GT contenders can.

Spillak beat him on that stage last year as well.

Neither he nor contador nor anyone else came close in the tdf though

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Spilak caught Froome because Froome waited for him.

 

[BYOP88]

Spilak caught Froome because Froome waited for him.

This..........

 

[RownhamHill]

I don't think anyone says every rider is protected...

Froome could be protected because he is the captain of Sky and British. New market etc.

Isn't this a bit circular though?

Froome certainly wasn't the captain of Sky when he transformed, and he's barely British in any case. So is he protected because he's Sky captain (unlike Geraint Thomas, who while British, misses out on protection because he's not captain), or is he Sky captain because he was protected (and hence able to 'transform', unlike poor unprotected Geraint Thomas)?

And, on the same subject, why didn't anyone see fit to protect him before the summer of 2011, at a time when it looked like he was on the way out at Sky?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Isn't this a bit circular though?

Froome certainly wasn't the captain of Sky when he transformed, and he's barely British in any case. So is he protected because he's Sky captain (unlike Geraint Thomas, who while British, misses out on protection because he's not captain), or is he Sky captain because he was protected (and hence able to 'transform', unlike poor unprotected Geraint Thomas)?

And, on the same subject, why didn't anyone see fit to protect him before the summer of 2011, at a time when it looked like he was on the way out at Sky?

Huh? What has Geraint Thomas needed protection from? Did you mean JTL?

And what did Froome need protection from pre-2011 Vuelta.

People are winning races and being the believable heroes of the day. Sell a good story, develop a weak or underdeveloped market (UK, Olympics, South Africa) and UCI will be happy campers. Let the odd, faithful rider / team win something here and there but for the most part, the narrative is to grow cycling.

I don't think Cookson is protecting anyone. Just like I don't think Brailsford is doping anyone.

But they aren't actively chasing those people down and trying to find out just how the feck they got so good all of a sudden, inexplicably.

 

[gooner]

Why was Armstrong protected and not Hamilton?

Money.

A good will story that brought publicity to the sport.

 

[stutue]

Spilak caught Froome because Froome waited for him.

Sure, because he didn't want to miss out on a sprint at the end

 

[deeno1975]

Sure, because he didn't want to miss out on a sprint at the end

Why don't you address what Beech Mtn said that you posted re Ricco??

Originally Posted by stutue View Post

<snipped>

So thick that he didn't even understand why his ridiculous antics made everyone else look bad.... which of course is why they all hated him, not because he doped.

What Ricco used to do and what Froome now does is in the realms of the ridiculous but you still think that Froome is Pan y Agua and Ricco was on rocket fuel... or am I missing something in what your position is????

 

[red_flanders]

A good will story that brought publicity to the sport.

Right. Money.

Why was Contador protected. Money.

When did Sky start winning? Right before the London Olympics. Hmmmm.

 

[stutue]

Why don't you address what Beech Mtn said that you posted re Ricco??

Either because I didn't read it, or when I did read it didn't deem it worthy of a response would be the true answer. Can't remember which one it was In all honesty.

What Ricco used to do and what Froome now does is in the realms of the ridiculous but you still think that Froome is Pan y Agua and Ricco was on rocket fuel... or am I missing something in what your position is????

You aren't missing something in what my position is you are inventing what my position is.

My position is as set out in the entirety of my postings here. If you are that fascinated by what my position is then give them a read.

 

[kingjr]

Why don't you address what Beech Mtn said that you posted re Ricco??



What Ricco used to do and what Froome now does is in the realms of the ridiculous but you still think that Froome is Pan y Agua and Ricco was on rocket fuel... or am I missing something in what your position is????

You could tell Ricco was doping from his character, not from what he was doing on the road.

 

[BYOP88]

You could tell Ricco was doping from his character, not from what he was doing on the road.

Same with Froome:

"If you want something badly enough you'll find a way to make it happen".

 

[kingjr]

Same with Froome

Not for me so far.

 

[Benotti69]

No idea what you are saying here, but looks like an attempt to fit my point into some kind of platitudinal paradigm.

Credibility..........

And Armstrong is adamant that he was clean for his comeback. So, they are both liars. So what?

I want to know what your rationale is for thinking that Armstrong got the UCI to poz Floyd, what would be the advantage to the UCI or Armstrong.

If I paraphrase you, you are saying " they did it because they are corrupt"....which is either anodyne or assinine, but probably both.

We are talking about Armstrong, sociopath and narcissist.

Floyd has/had more talent than Armstrong and would have taken a lot of limelight away from Armstrong, with multiple TdF wins.

UCI, we are talking about McQuaid and also Hein/McQ/Armstrong were trying to buy the TdF at the time.

Is Froome a protected rider, why not?

UCI, corrupt, never

 

[RownhamHill]

Huh? What has Geraint Thomas needed protection from? Did you mean JTL?

And what did Froome need protection from pre-2011 Vuelta.

No I didn't mean JTL, I used Thomas as an example because Netserk was responding to someone who asked why Froome had been chosen to be protected and not Thomas or a more obviously marketable rider.

The original question is based on exploring the narrative that Froome is protected which has allowed him to dope massively and become the chosen one. So if that's true then why Froome and not, say, Thomas.

To which Netserk suggests (not unreasonably) that he's protected because he's the captain. But then the difficulty with that answer I pointed out is that he wasn't the captain before his 'transformation' (and perhaps would never have got to be captain had he not had the protection to allow the transformation).

Obviously if you reject the idea that he's protected then the whole discussion is silly.

 

[sniper]

The original question is based on exploring the narrative that Froome is protected which has allowed him to dope massively and become the chosen one. So if that's true then why Froome and not, say, Thomas.

i don't think anybody's saying he was particularly protected prior to his transformation.
sky as a team may have received protection early on though.

 

[pmcg76]

i don't think anybody's saying he was particularly protected prior to his transformation.
sky as a team may have received protection early on though.

If SKY received protection early on, why were they so poor the first few seasons?

 

[SundayRider]

Same with Froome:

"If you want something badly enough you'll find a way to make it happen".

Exactly. How come he didn't want it badly enough until he was 26 and in the final year of his contract?

 

[red_flanders]

Exactly. How come he didn't want it badly enough until he was 26 and in the final year of his contract?

Is the question, "Have other riders started doping after some time/years of riding without it?". Yes, absolutely. The motivations cited has been as varied as the riders.

Maybe he wanted a new contract. Maybe he was tired of not making the Tour team. Maybe he really needed money. Maybe he was introduced to someone who gave him a plan and/or a vision. Maybe all of those things, maybe something else.

Who knows. Whatever the answer, it does not speak in any way to the question, "Did he start doping at that time?"

To be clear, the following logic does not work: "If I can't figure out why he started doing it, it follows that he may not have started doing it."

 

[SundayRider]

Is the question, "Have other riders started doping after some time/years of riding without it?". Yes, absolutely. The motivations cited has been as varied as the riders.

Maybe he wanted a new contract. Maybe he was tired of not making the Tour team. Maybe he really needed money. Maybe he was introduced to someone who gave him a plan and/or a vision. Maybe all of those things, maybe something else.

Who knows. Whatever the answer, it does not speak in any way to the question, "Did he start doping at that time?"

To be clear, the following logic does not work: "If I can't figure out why he started doing it, it follows that he may not have started doing it."

I know that, it wasn't really the point I was making. Just pointing out his mindset. 1000 days and all that, which ironically enough his breakthrough came after roughly 1000 days as a European pro.

 

[red_flanders]

I know that, it wasn't really the point I was making. Just pointing out his mindset. 1000 days and all that, which ironically enough his breakthrough came after roughly 1000 days as a European pro.

Gotcha. Not sure I totally follow the point about mindset. Interested to hear what you're thinking.

 

[blackcat]

I know that, it wasn't really the point I was making. Just pointing out his mindset. 1000 days and all that, which ironically enough his breakthrough came after roughly 1000 days as a European pro.

how about, just doing enough to get by.

if all are doping, and all are athletes with the physiology off the bell curve, if you are only meeting others in maintenance doping, that is not enough for the podium

 

[SundayRider]

Gotcha. Not sure I totally follow the point about mindset. Interested to hear what you're thinking.

His 'if you want something bad enough you'll find a way to make it happen quote' just doesn't sit right with me. He has never really acknowledged the fact that he burst onto the scene either.