Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 590 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mellow Velo said:
Rubbish.

Black and white would be a one colour improvement around here.
This: "you are either with us or against us" ( and therefore wrong) ideology is nonsense.
The Rubbish here is people suggesting that others don't have an open mind because they have considered the situation and made a judgement. An open mind does not mean never forming an opinion. It means being open to having that opinion changed.

However, the reality is that some people have seen enough to make an informed, considered judgement. Should some fact come to light which would shine a new light on the topic, I am certainly willing to change my view. However, as I have determined by slogging through a ton of the existing evidence, this is as unlikely an event as could occur. The time to present facts which would contradict my informed judgement seems to have long since passed–why hasn't it come to light? Where are those physiological parameters that would indicate Froome is naturally capable of his performances? Where are the explanations for all the lies and contradictions? They aren't there. As such, I have formed an opinion. You seem to be left personally attacking people for lacking an "open mind" (as you put it), which only confirms the lack of any other evidence which could change my view.

There is no "us" to be with or against. There is me and my view. I don't even know what yours is, other than "I don't really know" and "you all don't have an open mind". I don't have much to say about the former, but the latter is horse droppings.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
red_flanders said:
The Rubbish here is people suggesting that others don't have an open mind because they have considered the situation and made a judgement. An open mind does not mean never forming an opinion. It means being open to having that opinion changed.

However, the reality is that some people have seen enough to make an informed, considered judgement. Should some fact come to light which would shine a new light on the topic, I am certainly willing to change my view. However, as I have determined by slogging through a ton of the existing evidence, this is as unlikely an event as could occur. The time to present facts which would contradict my informed judgement seems to have long since passed–why hasn't it come to light? Where are those physiological parameters that would indicate Froome is naturally capable of his performances? Where are the explanations for all the lies and contradictions? They aren't there. As such, I have formed an opinion. You seem to be left personally attacking people for lacking an "open mind" (as you put it), which only confirms the lack of any other evidence which could change my view.

There is no "us" to be with or against. There is me and my view. I don't even know what yours is, other than "I don't really know" and "you all don't have an open mind". I don't have much to say about the former, but the latter is horse droppings.
Well put.

Personal attacks seem to be a default position by Sky fans........
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Some interesting stuff in this week's cycling podcast from Ned Boulting (who has been filming a docu with Froome). Says he's ~6kg over race weight now, that he could lose it in 3 weeks, that he's very seperate from the team whilst training in south africa - he doesn't mean to imply it at all but it seemed to open all the doors to the explanation that Sky have no idea what Froome is doing and how he became suddenly so good in 2011. Also c.f Porte's 400km training day last off season which didn't fit in very well with the image of Kerrison the training guru.
 
Bumeington said:
Some interesting stuff in this week's cycling podcast from Ned Boulting (who has been filming a docu with Froome). Says he's ~6kg over race weight now, that he could lose it in 3 weeks, that he's very seperate from the team whilst training in south africa - he doesn't mean to imply it at all but it seemed to open all the doors to the explanation that Sky have no idea what Froome is doing and how he became suddenly so good in 2011. Also c.f Porte's 400km training day last off season which didn't fit in very well with the image of Kerrison the training guru.
Wonder if this means he's off the sauce right now?
 
Bumeington said:
Some interesting stuff in this week's cycling podcast from Ned Boulting (who has been filming a docu with Froome). Says he's ~6kg over race weight now, that he could lose it in 3 weeks, that he's very seperate from the team whilst training in south africa - he doesn't mean to imply it at all but it seemed to open all the doors to the explanation that Sky have no idea what Froome is doing and how he became suddenly so good in 2011. Also c.f Porte's 400km training day last off season which didn't fit in very well with the image of Kerrison the training guru.
I certainly have always thought the evidence suggested strongly think Froome has been doing whatever he's been doing on his own. They were easily as surprised by his transformation as anyone.

I also think Sky has been doing all they can to help cover it up after the fact.
 
red_flanders said:
The Rubbish here is people suggesting that others don't have an open mind because they have considered the situation and made a judgement. An open mind does not mean never forming an opinion. It means being open to having that opinion changed.

However, the reality is that some people have seen enough to make an informed, considered judgement. Should some fact come to light which would shine a new light on the topic, I am certainly willing to change my view. However, as I have determined by slogging through a ton of the existing evidence, this is as unlikely an event as could occur. The time to present facts which would contradict my informed judgement seems to have long since passed–why hasn't it come to light? Where are those physiological parameters that would indicate Froome is naturally capable of his performances? Where are the explanations for all the lies and contradictions? They aren't there. As such, I have formed an opinion. You seem to be left personally attacking people for lacking an "open mind" (as you put it), which only confirms the lack of any other evidence which could change my view.

There is no "us" to be with or against. There is me and my view. I don't even know what yours is, other than "I don't really know" and "you all don't have an open mind". I don't have much to say about the former, but the latter is horse droppings.
Fine and dandy for yourself. Just as it should be.
Others can clarify their position, if they wish.

Suggesting that a particular faction may not be open minded to change is not a personal attack on here.
Falls into the same category as calling a particular faction "bots", for instance.

Or, just as you accomplished with this:
Apparently "open mind" means "unable to form an opinion after thoughtful and prolonged consideration".

By not quoting TWH.;)

Anyhow, I'll leave you all to get on.
 
frenchfry said:
You are right, in France a "collège" is a jr high school and apparently Vayer is a PE teacher at one.

That is is employment position, it doesn't mean he doesn't have other qualifications or competences.
Thank you french-fry.

Perhaps the person who accused me of being bigoted would like to rethink their comment?

Or is it the usual "I've been here longer than you therefore I am right" post?
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
TheSpud said:
Thank you french-fry.

Perhaps the person who accused me of being bigoted would like to rethink their comment?

Or is it the usual "I've been here longer than you therefore I am right" post?
Hard to imagine you have only been here a few months. In some ways it feels like you have been here for years.
 
Mellow Velo said:
Fine and dandy for yourself. Just as it should be.
Others can clarify their position, if they wish.

Suggesting that a particular faction may not be open minded to change is not a personal attack on here.
Falls into the same category as calling a particular faction "bots", for instance.

Or, just as you accomplished with this:
Apparently "open mind" means "unable to form an opinion after thoughtful and prolonged consideration".

By not quoting TWH.;)

Anyhow, I'll leave you all to get on.
To the bolded, that's why I don't engage in name-calling like "bots".

To the last, that was directed at you and was a critique of your post, not you. I'm sure you see the difference.

Instructive (again) that you addressed none of the pertinent content of my post.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
TailWindHome said:
Nothing we could agree to put in a Reasoned Decision.
But as ever my mind remains open to the possibilities and the argument.
This seems very close to "he has not been convicted as of now" but in this great place, we don't have to exclude evidence with probative value from consideration like we would have to, were we in a court. Or even a kangaroo court like drug trials.

Perhaps the following thought experiment helps. Suppose some very rich person asks you to predict whether Froomy has ever used an illegal performance enhancing drug.

Suppose further that the truth will be revealed come Christmas and if you predict correct you will receive a billion pounds. What would your prediction be?
 
the sceptic said:
Hard to imagine you have only been here a few months. In some ways it feels like you have been here for years.
You can think what you like septic it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The point I was making here was that I was called a bigot for querying Vayers "qualifications" despite what I said being accurate. He's no more a professor than I am.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
TheSpud said:
You can think what you like septic it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The point I was making here was that I was called a bigot for querying Vayers "qualifications" despite what I said being accurate. He's no more a professor than I am.
Thanks for proving my point.
 
Mellow Velo said:
Rubbish.

Black and white would be a one colour improvement around here.
This: "you are either with us or against us" ( and therefore wrong) ideology is nonsense.
Posters get judged on their arguments. Of course posters can't come in here and get immunity from ridicule simply because they have a minority opinion.

Thus far no pro Sky poster has actually been able to challenge the case against Froome.

A number have been able to make good points in threads on individual subjects. Eg In a debate about Froome's Ventoux ascent, someone might say that 1 performance alone doesn't prove he is doping. Which is a fair argument, though I still believe that scientific studies into the effect of drugs suggest that it is unlikely in the extreme that someone could beat all those dopers times without massive PED help.

Some might point to the fact that Froome did not do as well on Alpe and Semnoz, therefore fades in gts, therefore more likely to be clean than if he improved during the gt. Though I think the fact that he had the GC wrapped up by then makes it difficult to conclude with certainty as to how good his form actually was, and in any case fading during a gt can happen to dopers as well.

Some say the 2012 Tour was heavily time trial based and Wiggins prefers time trials , though I would observe that 1 he beat Nibali in the mountains anyway, 2 he was never the time trial demon he became in the Tour that year, 3 his body shape was built for climbing, yet he sitll destroyed the flat time trials even though Canc was told that if you lose weight like that you should lose time trial power. Still it is true that the TDF route was more tt based.

But then that person or those people, who make respectable points in some discussions, will totally ignore other extremely damning points of evidence against Froome. They won't address why both Froome and Wiggins were able to in consecutive seasons peak for such long periods of time. And from where I'm standing, even if you can, in theory explain why Froome was able to match Lances time up Ventoux, (and Ax3 and that training climb, I forget its name) then all of that still seems thin if you cant explain why he was able to do that on a 6 month peak. Or should we pretend Wiggins and Froome didn't require an incredibly long peak to keep winning new stage races against new opposition, month after month after month?

No one has adressed the point that its extremely convenient that the only 2 riders who can defeat dopers times clean just happen to have emerged at more or less the same time, from the same country riding with the same set up. Presumably the argument would be that it really is another massive coincidence. Well in that case it is just another massive coincidence, on top of many others. How many coincidences can there be before the proposition becomes unlikely?

Why did Froome do so well in time trials before entering a wind tunnel. And isn't SKy's Pr about training bull**** if they don't even put one of their star riders in 1 for 3 years.

More importnatly some very difficult questions remain totally ignored.
Bilharzia in particular remains totally untouched by all of you. No one has attempted to do any research whatsoever, or address any of points made by those who have. A few of the joachim accounts quoted a unsourced wikipedia sentence which reffered to somethingh else entirely, and parker offered the pathetically weak strawman that he doesn't remember everything his doctor tells him either, so presumably it would make sense for an athlete to mishear that a mild easily treatable disease was potentially career ending (and go with the flow for 3 years).

But no one has adressed any of the legitimate questions about Froomes bilharzia.
Like why for example, did the Bilharzia which he had from 2009 -2013 which allegedly destroyed 2 years of his career, magically stopped having any impact on his performance, for 3 weeks during the 2011 Vuelta and another 9 weeks during the 2012 summer, before starting back up again immediately after in both cases (there is no possible scientific explanation for this. Bilharzia either exists or it doesn't, it doesn't conveniently disappear for a month).

Im not going to make this whole post about Bilharzia since Cn doesn't have a sufficient word limit for all the easily identifiable Bull**** Froome and Brailsford have tried to spin on it.
Still, its like we are supposed to pretend Froome didn't lie through his teeth in interview after interview for 3 years before changing his story into something that contradicts the first one.

As is the issue about weight loss. I and others may be ridiculed for reposting for the 10 000th time that wiggo managing to lose weight but not power is highly suspicious but these same posts ridiculing it won't explain how it was done.
Likewise its totally ignored that Wiggins finding out how to lose weight without losing power, clean just happens to coincide directly with the emergence of powerful weight loss drugs in professional sport. And the related point, made by Shane Stokes last year, is also ignored of how Wiggins dominates an olympic time trial with shockingly low body fat while preaching the importance of weight loss in his performances, and then the next year says he needs to build up weight to compete in time trials and ends up winning a silver and then a gold at world championships doing that.

These points are all left unasnwered.

Yes sometimes some of you can make good points, good observations, sometimes be in the right. With the whole "horse steroids" thing for example, I didn't think there was that much there besides another example of Froome lying, and I thought many clinic members who don't like Sky were heavily baiting and trolling on that issue.

But all that is worth very little as a defense or an argument if all you do is wait on the sidelines for the opportunity to pick holes in a few arguments, but totally ignore other damning parts. If you just address some of the questions about Froome but leave ones you have no answer for, on the side.

The unanswered questions I list above as well as many many others are still left open to be responded to/ addressed/ challenged if anyone is up for it.

But as long as posters who believe Sky are clean, or are "open to the possibility" of them being clean, refuse to even glance at a lot of the damning evidence that exists to believe Sky are doping, or engage in the full debate, then I don't see why I am in the wrong to view their arguments as inferior.

If you don't engage the whole debate and only try to pick off slices here and there then as far as I am concerned your argument is heavily inferior.

I'm not going to respect a weak opinion that's reliant on coincidences but more importantly ignores every valid counterargument against it.
 
And btw you may dismiss the clinic as being biased, but is it that different on other language forums.

I know from experience that the main Spanish language forum for example - foro de ciclismo, is even less fertile ground for posters who believe Sky could be clean, than the clinic is.

I haven't visited any others, but Im told by scandinavian posters (on here and elsewhere) that ive spoken to, that people weren't very convinced on those language forums during the 2013 Tour. I feel the poll taken by a Danish newspaper where 80% of people said they didn't believe froome probably backs that up to be the case in that country, and from my experience with dutch language posters (since most speak English), there doesn't seem to be much of a community that believes in Froome, in those countries either.

No idea about Italy and France, but due to the fact that the former has a similar doping history to Spain, and the latter has long recent history of accusing cyclists and other athletes of doping without proof, (including Vayer's and that TDF commentators direct questions of Froome), I would not be surprised if forums in those languages were not somewhat sceptical of Sky as well.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
thehog said:
Madone..... and Italian forums don't think he's clean but shrug their shoulders at the whole matter.

Excellent posts by the way.
hitch for mod :cool: Yes, good posts. He expresses what I have been trying to say much better than me.

and yes, I thnk pretty much everyone that isn't british just laughs at Dawg. Ventoux stage, I don't think any of the many eurosport commentators were taking that seriously.
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
The Hitch said:
And btw you may dismiss the clinic as being biased, but is it that different on other language forums.

I know from experience that the main Spanish language forum for example - foro de ciclismo, is even less fertile ground for posters who believe Sky could be clean, than the clinic is.


No idea about Italy and France, but due to the fact that the former has a similar doping history to Spain, and the latter has long recent history of accusing cyclists and other athletes of doping without proof, (including Vayer's and that TDF commentators direct questions of Froome), I would not be surprised if forums in those languages were not somewhat sceptical of Sky as well.
Foro de ciclismo they don't believe a second Froome is clean, they call him "Biohazard" ...in italy (cicloweb forum) there was astonishment in relation to Froome's wins at Ax-3 and Mont Ventoux but a bit suprisingly they didn't investigate much on that matter and don't investigate Froome that much. There is a Sky thread in the anti doping section, but comments are quite superficial and harmless.
In France (velo-club forum) a bit more scepticism than in Italy but there is just a doping thread where everything is discussed, so there is not too much room for general discussions.
I follow those forums closely ( plus german forums) and it's nice when you have a roman language (Italian) as 2nd native language (German first) - you are able to understand spanish and french quite good.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
thehog said:
Actually 17th...
1 Nathan O'Neill (Australia) 48.37.29
2 Ben Day (Australia) 0.24.38
3 Gordon McCauley (New Zealand) 1.13.41
4 Michael Hutchinson (Northern Ireland) 1.28.07
5 David McCann (Northern Ireland) 1.37.90
6 Stuart Dangerfield (England) 2.19.71
7 Svein Tuft (Canada) 2.32.37
8 Peter Latham (New Zealand) 2.44.44
9 Paul Manning (England) 3.05.56
10 David Harold George (Republic of South Africa) 3.11.45
11 Andrew Roche (Isle Of Man) 3.18.87
12 Logan Hutchings (New Zealand) 3.18.94
13 Zachary Michael Bell (Canada) 3.30.16
14 Stephen Cummings (England) 3.33.29
15 Jeremy Paul Maartens (Republic of South Africa) 4.51.86
16 Ryan Connor (Northern Ireland) 4.57.53
17 Christopher Clive Froome (Kenya) 5.20.72
18 Dan Craven (Namibia) 5.45.84
19 Duncan Urquhart (Scotland) 5.48.19
20 Matt Brammeier (Wales) 6.21.61

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/mar06/commgames06/?id=results/men_road_tt
The first of 72 riders off recorded an impressive time which made a mockery of his ranking for the event. Kenyan Christopher Froome stopped the clock in 53.58.01, a time which kept him on top of the standings for almost an hour as the next forty-nine starters failed to better his effort!

Kiwi Logan Hutchings was next to impress, lowering the time to beat by two minutes, but his hopes of a gold medal were short lived when the next rider home, Paul Manning (England) came in faster.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY