Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[del1962]

10 char

Mine was a secondary reply to another post, (not in my first reply) but an afterthought.

It should have gone in my first post though here

 

[the sceptic]

He hasn't a doping conviction whereas Contador has.
Or am I missing a whole different sub argument?

Yes. Read his posts.

 

[Benotti69]

come on skyfans you know you want to post it.........

FROOME NEVER TESTED POSITIVE........


there doesn't that make y'all feel better

 

[SeriousSam]

I have never declared victory. Read the post history and you will see. I only responded to a post earlier and I said that I can see why someone thinks that you can't compare Froome and Contador.

Then I was challenged so I presented some facts as to why I think the way I do.

Well I still don't get it. Why can't we compare them? Also, is my interpretation of "can't compare them" correct? Please clarify.

I'm terribly afraid Benotti69 might actually be right. That some people still , after all this time, think there's something special to never having tested positive.

 

[TailWindHome]

come on skyfans you know you want to post it.........

FROOME NEVER TESTED POSITIVE........


there doesn't that make y'all feel better

And Contador only took tiny amount of Clen

So it's all good all round then.

Coolio

 

[the sceptic]

And Contador only took tiny amount of Clen

So it's all good all round then.

Coolio

Yes, both dopers. Glad we agree.

 

[King Boonen]

Lets be fair, Benotti69 is as critical of every cyclist in terms of doping, Contador is not spared.

 

[laurel1969]

Much as I dislike and suspect Froome....

Froome is a doper= supposition
Contador is a doper= known fact

....let's not pretend otherwise.

Benotti60's 'Lance never tested positive' jibe is not comparable, because from very early on there were very detailed rumours from within the pro cycling bubble and testimony. Even after the testimony Lance was still punting he 'never tested positive" line.

With Froome there are no rumours and there is no testimony.

I happen to believe that one day there may/will be, but at present there isn't. My suspicions are just suspicions.

 

[Netserk]

Much as I dislike and suspect Froome....

Froome is a doper= supposition
Contador is a doper= known fact

....let's not pretend otherwise.

Is it a known fact that Bassons is a doper?

 

[King Boonen]

Is it a known fact that Bassons is a doper?

No, 1 billion chars...

 

[the sceptic]

translation: never tested positive

I would love to see a sky fan try to explain how Froome is clean, but they always disappear when I ask the question.

 

[Benotti69]

Lets be fair, Benotti69 is as critical of every cyclist in terms of doping, Contador is not spared.

So what, Contador is a doper. Why should he be spared?

Froome wants people to believe he is clean. He has done nothing to help those who question his meteoric rise with transparency. That equals doper.

Those skyfans defending Froome understand very little about this sport.

 

[King Boonen]

So what, Contador is a doper. Why should he be spared?

Froome wants people to believe he is clean. He has done nothing to help those who question his meteoric rise with transparency. That equals doper.

Those skyfans defending Froome understand very little about this sport.

Not sure what you mean?


My comment was because tailwind seemed to be implying you give Berto an easy ride. I was pointing out you don't.

 

[SeriousSam]

Much as I dislike and suspect Froome....

Froome is a doper= supposition
Contador is a doper= known fact

....let's not pretend otherwise.

Incorrect. A positive test is just a fact that is (usually) much more likely to be if a rider dopes than if he doesn't, as are other facts that have nothing to do with positives, such as confessions, doing the Alpe quicker than Pantani, suddenly gaining a lot of power and so on.

It's depressing how ignorant people are on this matter but I guess not everyone is trained in science.

 

[Benotti69]

Not sure what you mean?


My comment was because tailwind seemed to be implying you give Berto an easy ride. I was pointing out you don't.

Ok. just giving it some more

Apologies if it appeared harsh in tone.

 

[King Boonen]

Ok. just giving it some more

Apologies if it appeared harsh in tone.

No worries, I was just confused as it seemed like you thought I was implying something else.

 

[King Boonen]

Incorrect. A positive test is just a fact that is (usually) much more likely to be if a rider dopes than if he doesn't...

Err... What does that mean?

 

[laurel1969]

Incorrect. A positive test is just a fact that is (usually) much more likely to be if a rider dopes than if he doesn't, as are other facts that have nothing to do with positives, such as confessions, doing the Alpe quicker than Pantani, suddenly gaining a lot of power and so on.

It's depressing how ignorant people are on this matter but I guess not everyone is trained in science.

Including you, by the sound of it.

 

[Benotti69]

Much as I dislike and suspect Froome....

Froome is a doper= supposition
Contador is a doper= known fact

....let's not pretend otherwise.

Benotti60's 'Lance never tested positive' jibe is not comparable, because from very early on there were very detailed rumours from within the pro cycling bubble and testimony. Even after the testimony Lance was still punting he 'never tested positive" line.

With Froome there are no rumours and there is no testimony.

I happen to believe that one day there may/will be, but at present there isn't. My suspicions are just suspicions.

Froome has been asked for his Vo2max for a long time now. That it has not been produced, but instead loads of excuses, which proves to me he is a doper! If Froome was clean he would be as transparent as possible, but he isn't.

That in cycling terms equates to doping.

Dress it up anyway you want but after all the doping scandals in the sport any rider wanting to be considered clean will ask journalists, what do you want to know? and then give them credible information, like Vo2max, not risible excuses about not being tested.

 

[Netserk]

No, 1 billion chars...

So a(n anti-)doping suspension doesn't mean that it's a known fact that the rider is a doper. I agree. Do you get the point I was making?

 

[Netserk]

Err... What does that mean?

It could be a false positive. Let's imagine that the highly unlikely beef-scenario is the truth, then it isn't a known fact that he is a doper.

 

[Big Doopie]

Lets be fair, Benotti69 is as critical of every cyclist in terms of doping, Contador is not spared.

Lol benotti69 is particularly critical of garmin. Of all the people to attack about doping he chooses garmin as his worst offender. And that really is a joke.

Don't like Froome. When they get something on him, kick him out.

But they got tons on Clentadoppucci. Tons.

The biggest issue I have with Clentadoppucci is that he fought his positive and fed absolute bs to the fans for two whole years while continuing to falsify results by competing. This is soooo much worse than nearly all other dopers apart from Armstrong.

His personal doctor was (is?) a guy who received a lifetime ban. His only two tour wins we know were blood doped (Verbiers, Rasmussen). This is a guy who's only wins are drug tainted. Who lied to the fans for two years. Remains unrepentant.

He is NOT the same as other dopers just as LA wasn't.

And yet he enjoys unparalleled support on this site. And people consistently laud his so-called "natural" ability.

What a freakin joke.

 

[laurel1969]

So a(n anti-)doping suspension doesn't mean that it's a known fact that the rider is a doper. I agree. Do you get the point I was making?

Depends what the suspension is for.

Contador tested positive for a banned substance.
Bassons didnt test at all.

One of the suspensions was for doping, the other was for undermining (possibly unwittingly) the testing system.

 

[King Boonen]

So a(n anti-)doping suspension doesn't mean that it's a known fact that the rider is a doper. I agree. Do you get the point I was making?

No it doesn't and I do. I don't disagree with you, I just answered the question

It could be a false positive. Let's imagine that the highly unlikely beef-scenario is the truth, then it isn't a known fact that he is a doper.

If that's what he meant he needs to word it better, it was a very confusing sentence.

 

[Netserk]

Depends what the suspension is for.

Contador tested positive for a banned substance.
Bassons didnt test at all.

One of the suspensions was for doping, the other was for undermining (possibly unwittingly) the testing system.

Don't you have to know that it wasn't a false-positive for it to mean that it's a known fact that he is a doper?