Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Cycling is an stamina sport so top riders losing in January when they are furthest from their form and still tired from last season, to riders who are peaking for January, actually makes sense.

OK, lets do it a different route:
Diaz (& the others out of nowhere beating the hell out of 1-A pros in San Luis) is not good enough to have landed a pro contract. So I can safely assume he is less talented than a dom groupetto rider in Europe. So him going full speed he wouldnt be able to stay in touch with the peloton in summer of Europe... And then he comes out in January every two years to not only beat top pros, but destroying them? You really mean top pros are that much out of form? All of them?
Heck, AC won San Luis with ease a couple of years ago, right off the beach. And now nobody of the pros is able to do that?

No, sorry, I dont buy that. Thats too grotesque...

Much more likely (as Libertine said): Minimal testing in SA (thus card blanche for SA riders), while pros have to take care of their BP... Thats when you get absurd results like San Luis 2015

 

[LaFlorecita]

Wait, what's Diaz doing in the Froome thread? Froome does speeds for 1 hour Diaz wouldn't be able to hold for 5 minutes, and does it 6 months at a time whereas Diaz does it and needs 51 weeks to recover.

Diaz is just the new Horner for Foxxy, in other words, the rider he keeps bringing up when someone mentions Froome or another Sky rider in a doping context.

 

[SundayRider]

Yep. And then they sign contracts with real pros with two consequences: a.) being caught as a 63-percenter
b.) riding in anonymity for a couple of years before heading back to South America...
Thus it seems the BP is working to some extend.



Not all, only those (the majority) that explain Horner, Diaz & Co. as plausible. Its beyond me after the million of scandals since 1998.



Froome is a mystery. But what speaks for him is that he doesnt do a Horner, Cobo, or LA (winning 3 week races, and then either hide completely or finishing races at spots 143-186). .

TBH I don't think either completely dominating for long stretches or dominating then being rubbish (relatively) proves anything and doesn't show that something is better/worse, whatever.

I think the 'method' has obviously changed somewhat compared to say ten years ago. Pretty much all GT riders used to be in poor condition early one, not so now.

 

[pastronef]

Michael Snow

Yep, now he is another super duper Skyborg doper. But totally likeable before, when riding with the clean team.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Diaz is just the new Horner for Foxxy, in other words, the rider he keeps bringing up when someone mentions Froome or another Sky rider in a doping context.

And what does this post accomplish other than being another bait attempt by you (as usual)?
Does it negate the arguments I brought up? Does it make the Diaz,- Horner & Co. performances shine in a better light?
You dont need to answer. Those were rhetorical questions.

TBH I don't think either completely dominating for long stretches or dominating then being rubbish (relatively) proves anything and doesn't show that something is better/worse, whatever.

I think the 'method' has obviously changed somewhat compared to say ten years ago. Pretty much all GT riders used to be in poor condition early one, not so now.

So one could also argue that the peloton is cleaner now (b/c of the BP); top guys perform year long as it used to be before the darkest era; over-the-top-dopers can be identified easily nowadays (those pumping up to 63 for a certain event, and then go back to anonymity, their normal performance level).

Michael Snow

 

[LaFlorecita]

Does it negate the arguments I brought up? Does it make the Diaz,- Horner & Co. performances shine in a better light?

It does not. But perhaps you'll start posting your doubts about them in the appropriate threads instead of derailing every discussion about Sky.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It does not. But perhaps you'll start posting your doubts about them in the appropriate threads instead of derailing every discussion about Sky.

How did I derail the discussion about Sky? It started with Skys Nieve allegedly being super suspicious coz of having a great day.
Then I brought up real suspicious performances as comparison.
Sometimes a discussion gets further than the OP post. That is normal when explaining arguments.
OTOH baiting "discussions" are really off topic. Thats the difference here.

 

[skippythepinhead]

So one could also argue that the peloton is cleaner now (b/c of the BP); top guys perform year long as it used to be before the darkest era; over-the-top-dopers can be identified easily nowadays (those pumping up to 63 for a certain event, and then go back to anonymity, their normal performance level).

I might stipulate to "less acutely filthy"

 

[LaFlorecita]

How did I derail the discussion about Sky? It started with Skys Nieve allegedly being super suspicious coz of having a great day.
Then I brought up real suspicious performances as comparison.
Sometimes a discussion gets further than the OP post. That is normal when explaining arguments.
OTOH baiting "discussions" are really off topic. Thats the difference here.

It would not be an issue if you did it once or twice. However, bringing up Horner (and now the South Americans) has become your go-to response to clinic discussions about Sky. From now on I will report them as off-topic.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It would not be an issue if you did it once or twice. However, bringing up Horner (and now the South Americans) has become your go-to response to clinic discussions about Sky. From now on I will report them as off-topic.

Report, report... be free like a bird. Cry as long you want.
I just feel sorry for the mods to get tangled up with your BS. I guess they have more serious things to take care of than overviewing your personal issues with me...

Finally: Small hint for you. What goes around comes around.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I might stipulate to "less acutely filthy"

I am ok with that.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Yep. And then they sign contracts with real pros with two consequences: a.) being caught as a 63-percenter
b.) riding in anonymity for a couple of years before heading back to South America...
Thus it seems the BP is working to some extend.



Not all, only those (the majority) that explain Horner, Diaz & Co. as plausible. Its beyond me after the million of scandals since 1998.



Froome is a mystery. But what speaks for him is that he doesnt do a Horner, Cobo, or LA (winning 3 week races, and then either hide completely or finishing races at spots 143-186). Dont know what he does, but it can be only two things:
a.) he was clean clean before his transfo, and since then dopes inbounds the BP (like any other CG rider does/did since youth). IOW: Froomes transfo looks more wild than those of others, coz he switched from clean to dope in a hurry, while the others were inch by inch more "prepared" the higher they got in the ranks (youth-amateur-pro/dom-pro/captain)
b.) he is on (successful) gene manipulation...



Horner is old-school. Over the top doper. Transfusions, rest, transfusions... The good ol LA program. No mystery at all. The most obvious doper that there is... Ever was. Beats Mosquera, and the Diaz of the world by a good chunk.

Conclusion: Personally I can live with reality. Cheating in top positions is the name of the game. Everywhere. Why shall cycling be the lone exception?
Its bad, but I cant change the world...
As long as Froome & co stay plausible within the bounds (I think Froome of 2013 was a little too much for me to swallow, until I saw what Horner did. Froome looked, in comparison, normal in hindsight), I can enjoy his riding. Especially for the fun of clinic explosions. ...Its cynical I know...
But what I cant stand is plain and simple insults to my brain. I dont like to be spit on like the Horners, Mosqueras do/did. If those dopers go wayyy over the top its just disgusting. Abnormal. Freaky. Grotesque.

I like your position. It probably feels less hypocritical than the "I like the dopers I like" it looks like to me.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I like your position. It probably feels less hypocritical than the "I like the dopers I like" it looks like to me.

Thanks... well, I took that position since the Sky bashing started some years ago: Them Sky bad, rest ok.
I just hold up the mirror to those that bash Sky. "Their" riders are no inch better, and some of them are actually worse than the so-called Skybots. Those riders who dont even pass the eye-test... And then the crying starts: When certain fangirls feel free to bash Froome & Co, but cry foul when I call out worse or at least same fueled-up riders.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's been explained many times, but the reason Sky have received so much attention, and continue to receive so much attention, is because they suddely arose to dominate while going out of their way to offer insulting bull**** rhetoric to sell their success.

They use the most obviously doped rider yet to test positive in the history of the solar system to annihilate the doped up competition whilst simultaneously telling a story about how they are the cleanest team of all time cos Geert is just treating saddle sores.

The attention they received here has been nothing but appropriate.

 

[Afrank]

Lets move along Flo and Foxxy.

Florecita does have a point, a full on discussion on Diaz or Horner or whoever else is off topic in this thread. I assume nobody has a problem with the discussion being held, just held in an appropriate thread.

Here's a more appropriate thread to continue the Diaz discussion- http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12910&highlight=south+american

And lets follow the title of this one and keep it "Froome talk only."

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

It's been explained many times, but the reason Sky have received so much attention, and continue to receive so much attention, is because they suddely arose to dominate while going out of their way to offer insulting bull**** rhetoric to sell their success.

They use the most obviously doped rider yet to test positive in the history of the solar system to annihilate the doped up competition whilst simultaneously telling a story about how they are the cleanest team of all time cos Geert is just treating saddle sores.

The attention they received here has been nothing but appropriate.

I am ok with that... But especially with Froome, its bigger. Almost personal... not b/c of Sky PR, but b/c of his riding style, girlfriend, and character. Pure hate.
I am in the minority, b/c I like the style of Froome. Never offending others (like LA did for example), and his unique riding style is something new (& his strange tactics ofc). Its fun to watch, b/c you never know what you get. Much more enjoyable than the years of AC and Schlecks riding backwards while looking hard at each other... Tastes are different.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Lets move along Flo and Foxxy.

Florecita does have a point, a full on discussion on Diaz or Horner or whoever else is off topic in this thread. I assume nobody has a problem with the discussion being held, just held in an appropriate thread.

Here's a more appropriate thread to continue the Diaz discussion- http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12910&highlight=south+american

And lets follow the title of this one and keep it "Froome talk only."

Its ok for me. Didnt know about the Diaz thread... But I would like you to keep my posts in, because of the context with the Nieve bashing (which I didnt start). Thanks in advance.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Thanks... well, I took that position since the Sky bashing started some years ago: Them Sky bad, rest ok.
I just hold up the mirror to those that bash Sky. "Their" riders are no inch better, and some of them are actually worse than the so-called Skybots. Those riders who dont even pass the eye-test... And then the crying starts: When certain fangirls feel free to bash Froome & Co, but cry foul when I call out worse or at least same fueled-up riders.

If you are ok with Sky/Froome doping, why discuss him in the clinic, which is the only place for doping discussions? I do see your point regarding not bringing other riders into a discussion of Froome's doping, but there are moderators here.

There are Froome threads outside the clinic where his doping status is not allowed to be an issue.

 

[Afrank]

Its ok for me. Didnt know about the Diaz thread... But I would like you to keep my posts in, because of the context with the Nieve bashing (which I didnt start). Thanks in advance.

I don't plan to delete any posts.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If you are ok with Sky/Froome doping, why discuss him in the clinic, which is the only place for doping discussions? I do see your point regarding not bringing other riders into a discussion of Froome's doping, but there are moderators here.

There are Froome threads outside the clinic where his doping status is not allowed to be an issue.

No, no... I am not ok w/Froome doping. I would like to live on planet paradise where everybody in high performance positions with much of money at stake would play fair... until then I have to accept reality. And since doping in pro sports go together like cheese and wine, I have to post in the clinic.

I just cant stand the position of some "your doper is worse than mine".

I accept the BP. I see its working to some extend, b/c as I said: Otherwise max-doped-up amateurs and/or old over-the-hill-over-the-top-dopers would stand no chance against real pros. Be it in January in South America, or September in Spain. But I feel free to speak free about this absurd freak shows, especially in comparison to the oh-so-doped-up Sky performances.

 

[Angliru]

No, no... I am not ok w/Froome doping. I would like to live on planet paradise where everybody in high performance positions with much of money at stake would play fair... until then I have to accept reality. And since doping in pro sports go together like cheese and wine, I have to post in the clinic.

I just cant stand the position of some "your doper is worse than mine".

I accept the BP. I see its working to some extend, b/c as I said: Otherwise max-doped-up amateurs and/or old over-the-hill-over-the-top-dopers would stand no chance against real pros. Be it in January in South America, or September in Spain. But I feel free to speak free about this absurd freak shows, especially in comparison to the oh-so-doped-up Sky performances.

I could be mistaken but didn't you imply that Diaz's doping (along with Horner and Mosquera) was harder for you to tolerate, more so than Froome's because their particular kind of doping is more obvious? If you think that then how is that attitude any different than the "your doper is worse than mine" position that you can't stand? You've stated that you find Froome's style appealing and are quick to come to his defense at the expense of riders like Diaz and Horner.

I just don't see the difference between Froome or anyone else dominating at the top of the sport and a South American rider beating the Europeans in South America in January at the very first race of the Europeans season and after the South American's have been racing for weeks or more already. Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[red_flanders]

I thought we were done with Diaz and Horner in this thread.

 

[Angliru]

I thought we were done with Diaz and Horner in this thread.

My bad. Ignore my post.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I could be mistaken but didn't you imply that Diaz's doping (along with Horner and Mosquera) was harder for you to tolerate, more so than Froome's because their particular kind of doping is more obvious? If you think that then how is that attitude any different than the "your doper is worse than mine" position that you can't stand? You've stated that you find Froome's style appealing and are quick to come to his defense at the expense of riders like Diaz and Horner.

I just don't see the difference between Froome or anyone else dominating at the top of the sport and a South American rider beating the Europeans in South America in January at the very first race of the Europeans season and after the South American's have been racing for weeks or more already. Maybe I'm missing something here.

One last one before we leave the Horner issue. My POV (as everywhere in life): Cant stand the obvious most blatant cheaters, but understand guys who keep up with others to do their job. Some little tricks here and there is whats needed in real life high positions (as bad as that is).

Like in love: Some sweet little lies are ok, but blatant cheating is not.

I felt a little disgusted w/Froomes TdF 2013, but didnt know what was about to come: The most blatant cheating ever in Spain by a certain USA granny. That alone washed away the bad memos of the TdF 2013.

The difference between my doper/your doper? I am no fanboy of Froome. I know what is going on. I just enjoy the show... and have my fun with clinic explosions when Froome does a new "tactic" like TTing up a mountain alone, while others ride in groups.

My fanboy days are over since Ullrich got caught. Plus I am a little too old now to see "role models" in pro sports or anywhere else.

About Diaz & Co. in January: As I said; AC jumped off the beach to win San Luis a couple of years ago. Now nobody of the top pros can keep up with obscure amateurs. And the reason is clear: The top pros need to take care of the BP, while the minimal tested can transform themselves into 63-percenters > absurd results.

 

[red_flanders]

My bad. Ignore my post.

No worries.