• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 581 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
the sceptic said:
Agree. My mistake for falling for the bait.

A more interesting discussion would be if sky fans think Froome should release all his power numbers like Pinot. If Froome is cleans, what is the downside?

It was a crude attempt to throw some bait in. Very obvious.

Agree on the power numbers; wasn't Froome/Walsh saying in the Climb that he doesn't know how to be any cleaner?

I think Pinot just showed him. Your move Dawg.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,819
2
0
Visit site
TailWindHome said:
The down side is the same whether he's clean or dirty.
It adds fuel to the doping allegations and makes doping the conversation.


Thing is, from a Sky perspective, there's no upside.

It would show that Sky are actually making an effort and attempting to show that their star rider is clean. That's one upside.

Where as not posting does create the question of why they won't do it? If he really is clean then one would think Sky shouldn't have anything to worry about if they posted his numbers.

Also, it wouldn't be making doping the conversation if doping is and has already been the conversation.

______________________________________________________
And I'd have to agree that posting a wedding pic in the clinic doesn't make a whole lot of sense, better to post in PRR section and leave this thread for doping related discussions on Froome.
 
Afrank said:
It would show that Sky are actually making an effort and attempting to show that their star rider is clean. That's one upside.

Where as not posting does create the question of why they won't do it? If he really is clean then one would think Sky shouldn't have anything to worry about if they posted his numbers.

Also, it wouldn't be making doping the conversation if doping is and has already been the conversation.

______________________________________________________
And I'd have to agree that posting a wedding pic in the clinic doesn't make a whole lot of sense, better to post in PRR section and leave this thread for doping related discussions on Froome.

Numbers are one part. Like Pinot's analysis there needs to be some commentary to the data.

When it comes to Froome we already know there would be a huge jump between pre Vulelta 2011 & after. I just don't know how they would explain this if they released those numbers. So they just keep it all to themselves.
 
Lol at someone who's every post is bait crying when they can't help themselves and post something spiteful .....and the other baiters crying when an alledged bait comes in from the perceived opposition........ Hey hog, didn't you once boast on Twitter about how you were going to 'bait someone into a ban'

.......my memory is a bit vague but I seem to recall you didn't come out of that very well.....what was it that poster discovered about you again?......remind us

:D:D

Mark L
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
Netserk said:
What makes no sense is posting it in the clinic thread, unless you want a certain kind of responses.

I've no control over how posters choose to respond.
Many posts in this thread are posted with no relevance to doping.

Indeed many posts are posted as posters are unhappy that no evidence of doping has emerged but they're unhappy to see the thread off the front page.
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
Afrank said:
It would show that Sky are actually making an effort and attempting to show that their star rider is clean. That's one upside.

Show who?

People who 'believe' in Sky will still believe
People who 'know' they're doping still know they're doping.
 
LaFlorecita said:
it was not a remark about the wedding photo but a remark about the Cound.

Even more crass and spiteful then isn't it....what makes me lol even more is the cowardliness and bad faith mendacity of trying to put responsibility for what comes out of one's own mouth onto somebody else who posted a photo without comment......its like finding a gun under a bridge.....murdering somebody with it....then trying to blame the murder on whoever left the gun under the bridge..

Mark L
 
ebandit said:
Even more crass and spiteful then isn't it....what makes me lol even more is the cowardliness and bad faith mendacity of trying to put responsibility for what comes out of one's own mouth onto somebody else who posted a photo without comment......its like finding a gun under a bridge.....murdering somebody with it....then trying to blame the murder on whoever left the gun under the bridge..

Mark L

But why would anyone post a wedding picture in the clinic if not to provoke?
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
But you do have control over what you post. Show some humility and some self-control.

The weeding has nothing to do doping or the Clinic.

In other words - grow up!

No need for personal attacks Hog

No need at all.

I refer you to my earlier comment

If anyone objects to any post I've made feel free to report to the moderators.

Anything else is just childish.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
thehog said:
But you do have control over what you post. Show some humility and some self-control.

The weeding has nothing to do doping or the Clinic.

In other words - grow up!

Good post Hog. Let the hounds get married without the clinic commenting on it.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
ebandit said:
Too late....you already did.....and what a snivelling mean-spirited and hateful remark it was too

Mark L

A realistic remark, Mark.

But if you wish to discuss their marriage further feel free to take it to the appropriate thread outside the clinic. This thread is about Froome and his doping.
 
TailWindHome said:
No need for personal attacks Hog

No need at all.

I refer you to my earlier comment



So your expectation was by posting a photo of the wedding on a cycling doping forum was what?

That people would comment on how lovely the dress and flowers were?

It was baiting, pure and simple. And very childish. Pretending it's the fault of others demonstrates this.
 
thehog said:
So your expectation was by posting a photo of the wedding on a cycling doping forum was what?

That people would comment on how lovely the dress and flowers were?

It was baiting, pure and simple. And very childish. Pretending it's the fault of others demonstrates this.

Says the man who boasts on Twitter how he is going to bait people into a ban

Mark L
 
Dec 11, 2013
1,138
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
So your expectation was by posting a photo of the wedding on a cycling doping forum was what?

That people would comment on how lovely the dress and flowers were?

It was baiting, pure and simple. And very childish. Pretending it's the fault of others demonstrates this.

Why are you so angry?

The wedding of Froome and Cound marks a significant milestone in their lives and IF the doping speculation turns out to have merit is a significant milestone in that story too.

There could have could have been interesting on how this legal union would impact on future investigations - would spousal privilege apply?

It could have provoked some Clinic humor.

Instead you, aided and abetted by The Sceptic have decided to use it as an excuse for a sustained attack on me.

So I repeat. If you have a problem with the post, which is as relevant as most of those which make up this thread, then report it to the mods
 
TailWindHome said:
The down side is the same whether he's clean or dirty.
It adds fuel to the doping allegations and makes doping the conversation.


Thing is, from a Sky perspective, there's no upside.

Sky have already taken credit for releasing data by dishonestly portraying the grappe conclusion "froome did not start doping between September 2011 and July 2013" as release of data.

Anyway to answer your question sky have repeatedly claimed that bringing transparency and cleanliness to the sport of cycling is a big aim of theirs, so taking a step towards assessing that yet unadressed aim would be one obvious upside.
 
thehog said:
I believe the person who posted did so as bait, to get the negative reactions. Poor play in my mind. I agree, leave the wedding out of general banter on here.


the sceptic said:
Agree. My mistake for falling for the bait.
I'll defend twh here. There was nothing wrong with him posting a photo of cf with mc.

And you guys are coming off rather pathetic now pointing the blame at him having a few posts ago been leading the reactions to the photo.

Not least because you folded under the pressure of 1 complaint. One person said they thought it was bad taste and immediately you turn and point your fingers.

Eh what was wrong with the comments? That is Chris froome in that photo, a man who we can prove 100% has been lying on a number of occasions I'm the last few years about the subject of doping. And next to him is Michelle Cound the one person in the team sky set up who has proved themselves capable of rivaling Wiggins in the ******* stakes
How are they not fair game? There's no one else in that photo. No innocent baby (it doesn't seem), no dying old man, no family relation . Just them 2 liars and *******s who deserve more than a few sarcastic comments quoted on their picture on this forum. And there's been far worse caption this games in the clinic before.

Your eagerness to throw twh under the bus suggests your willingness to troll him outweighs your dislike for froome and his actions.