Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[the sceptic]

Clean in 2009? Verbier? Hmmm.

by skyfan logic he was clean since he hadnt tested positive yet.

2005 paris-nice

2005 dauphine

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

by skyfan logic he was clean since he hadnt tested positive yet.

Haha, Skyfan logic... Are you 5 years old?

 

[thehog]

Haha, Skyfan logic... Are you 5 years old?

Botlogic....

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Botlogic....

So remind me... isn't Contador due to sign with Garmin any day now? Your sources seemed pretty confident. In fact he had actually signed hadn't he? Just waiting for the news to be announced, right?

 

[thehog]

So remind me... isn't Contador due to sign with Garmin any day now? Your sources seemed pretty confident. In fact he had actually signed hadn't he? Just waiting for the news to be announced, right?

I'll wait for David Walsh to tell me. Once I finish the BotBible, I'll be very well informed on all things cyclings.

...and Contador is Barrbus. No team would want him apart from the evil Mr. 60%.

How's your coffee, Alberto?

 

[Franklin]

Thanks. Was just curious.

The problem was that I was flipping back and hadn't gotten to that earlier question. Should have read all before I answered you.

 

[the sceptic]

Haha, Skyfan logic... Are you 5 years old?

No, but I have read a lot of posts from skyfans in the last 2 years.

skyfan logic goes: If there is no evidence someone is doping, they are clean. Worst case scenario, we are not sure. But you can never say someone is doping until you have evidence (positive test).

So Contador was clean until 2010, Horner is clean, Riis would have been clean if he hadnt confessed, and so forth.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I'll wait for David Walsh to tell me. Once I finish the BotBible, I'll be very well informed on all things cyclings.

and Contador is Barrbus. No team would want him apart from the evil Mr. 60%.

Well, let me know if they cover the part where Wiggins is working with Dr Ferrari. 100% guaranteed I believe you said?

Still a smart person like you (Cambridge grad - town and gown) would not make stuff up just to pretend you were a someone in the sport when in fact you are no one. Nope, can't see that. Only a very sad person would do that.

 

[thehog]

Well, let me know if they cover the part where Wiggins is working with Dr Ferrari. 100% guaranteed I believe you said?

Still a smart person like you (Cambridge grad - town and gown) would not make stuff up just to pretend you were a someone in the sport when in fact you are no one. Nope, can't see that. Only a very sad person would do that.

Why so personal? Its not my intention to get under your skin. So I apologies if I have.

It think its fine you're a Skyfan, a bot, you should be proud of it. Your boy Froome will probably win the next 8 Tours. Lots to look forward to.

Hope you had fun climbing in Europe, did you get up those hills?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

skyfan logic goes: If there is no evidence someone is doping, they are clean.

That seems quite reasonable to me?

 

[TailWindHome]

evidence (positive test).

There are other forms of evidence much greater than that currently 'against' Sky



The comparison in the time gap from first to second and second to tenth and it's implications intrigues me. What does one suppose the time gaps would be like if everyone was clean - bigger gaps? smaller gaps? even gaps between every rider.......assuming everyone was going 100%

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Why so personal? Its not my intention to get under your skin. So I apologies if I have.

It think its fine you're a Skyfan, a bot, you should be proud of it. Your boy Froome will probably win the next 8 Tours. Lots to look forward to.

Not at all. I find your posts very amusing. It's like reading fan fiction.

Hope you had fun climbing in Europe, did you get up those hills?

Yeah was very enjoyable. Climbing highlight was the Galibier. Though staying in the same hotels as some of the pro-teams was pretty good. Got Sagan to sign my green jersey. He is taller than I thought.

That said, you probably know all the guys on the pro circuit?

 

[Franklin]

Former WC Bert Grabsch.

Grabsch is indeed a nice exception! A short glance gives no better than 5th in the Tirneo prologue, 7th in turkey and 8th in the crit international.

And Sergey Gonchar

He almost won the Giro prologue in 1998, so he certainly got realy close. And furthermore there are more short results. He certainly shone in longer ITT's, but he's not struggling in the shorter ITT's as Grabsch.

So the point remains, the good TT riders usually do well in the shorter work as well and the other way around.

 

[thehog]

Yeah was very enjoyable. Climbing highlight was the Galibier. Though staying in the same hotels as some of the pro-teams was pretty good. Got Sagan to sign my green jersey. He is taller than I thought.

Good for you. You're an insider now.

 

[Franklin]

There are other forms of evidence much greater than that currently 'against' Sky

Do tell!

The comparison in the time gap from first to second and second to tenth and it's implications intrigues me. What does one suppose the time gaps would be like if everyone was clean - bigger gaps? smaller gaps? even gaps between every rider.......assuming everyone was going 100%

Nobody knows. As I have shown small gaps happened before Epo as well.

Even gaps? hell no. They aren't robots.

 

[Franklin]

Neither should be winning prologues

If you argue that dopers don't deserve to win, sure. But the idea that someone who wins long TT's is usually bad at short TT's is nonsense. Indeed, the difference between those disciplines seems suprisingly small. You encounter the same names all over again.

 

[the sceptic]

There are other forms of evidence much greater than that currently 'against' Sky



The comparison in the time gap from first to second and second to tenth and it's implications intrigues me. What does one suppose the time gaps would be like if everyone was clean - bigger gaps? smaller gaps? even gaps between every rider.......assuming everyone was going 100%

Evidence greater than testing positive? And people still believe. The mind boggles.

 

[TailWindHome]

Evidence greater than testing positive? And people still believe. The mind boggles.

I'll rephrase

There are other forms of evidence, not requiring a positive test, which would be much more compelling than that currently 'against' Sky

 

[the sceptic]

I'll rephrase

There are other forms of evidence, not requiring a positive test, which would be much more compelling than that currently 'against' Sky

Im struggling to think of anything that can be more damning than employing known doping doctors and climbing faster than the "doping era"

 

[TailWindHome]

Im struggling to think of anything that can be more damning than employing known doping doctors and climbing faster than the "doping era"

Credible witness testimony?

 

[Netserk]

Grabsch is indeed a nice exception! A short glance gives no better than 5th in the Tirneo prologue, 7th in turkey and 8th in the crit international.

IIRC none of those were prologues.

 

[roundabout]

I think Turkey was at least the opening stage. Must have been 2010?

 

[gooner]

I'll wait for David Walsh to tell me. Once I finish the BotBible, I'll be very well informed on all things cyclings.

...and Contador is Barrbus. No team would want him apart from the evil Mr. 60%.

How's your coffee, Alberto?

See, this is where I can't take you serious whatsoever.

In the Froome book thread, you were painting Contador in his light and shining armour and that he's a nice guy.

Yet this is a guy who plays the victim card while a positive was hanging over him, tells Kimmage in a press conference he has consistently spoken up for clean cycling during his career, puts up 7 fingers to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner after the final stage of the Vuelta in Madrid, and tells the media he has always been surrounded with people in his teams that are against doping.

Can you imagine the reaction from the likes of you and the sceptic if Froome was spouting nonsense to the level of the above?

One rule for one and a different for someone else.

 

[thehog]

See, this is where I can't take you serious whatsoever.

In the Froome book thread, you were painting Contador in his light and shining armour and that he's a nice guy.

Yet this is a guy who plays the victim card while a positive was hanging over him, tells Kimmage in a press conference he has consistently spoken up for clean cycling during his career, puts up 7 fingers to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner after the final stage of the Vuelta in Madrid, and tells the media he has always been surrounded with people in his teams that are against doping.

Can you imagine the reaction from the likes of you and the sceptic if Froome was spouting nonsense to the level of the above?

One rule for one and a different for someone else.

Believe what you will about me. That is your prerogative.

But the book is joke. Froome & Walsh are a comedy act all to themselves.

The book has just reinforced my belief that Froome is a doper.

 

[Franklin]

Im struggling to think of anything that can be more damning than employing known doping doctors

That works until you realize that also would implicate Lemond, who not only rode for dirty teams, but was also close to a quack who dabbled with steroids. And considering I'm pretty sure Greg is clean that means being close to a doping doctor is not 100% surefire proof. Neither is riding for a dirty team.

About the speeds: Yeah, Froome is probably too fast. I'm saying probably as the VAM values are still controversial (head/tailwind?). But Wiggins? I'm having trouble believing he was faster in 2012 than doped Lance/Conti/Rasmussen, especially considering that was a rather easy course.

And before people go of their rocker: Chances of Wiggo and Froome doping are astronomically bigger than them being clean. And that's just looking at past winners. Added the shehanigans with motomouse, DB's incessant lies, Leinders etc. etc. I have no doubts.

But saying that's stronger evidence than a test is hyperbole. There isn't even a first hand rumor.