• 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 609 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
One last one before we leave the Horner issue.

First of all, there's a Horner thread. For crying out loud.

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.

Second of all, to the bolded....

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I just cant stand the position of some "your doper is worse than mine".

Maybe you can drop it now that your obvious and ridiculously hypocritical agenda is clear? Or are you saying you "can't stand" your own position?
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
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).
:)

Lemond often stated that there were very few if any surprises back in the old days. You raced against the same people 200 days a year and knew who could do what and when and under what conditions. There were very few Diaz, Shumacher, Kohl that came from nowhere. Just sayin'
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
First of all, there's a Horner thread. For crying out loud.



Second of all, to the bolded....



Maybe you can drop it now that your obvious and ridiculously hypocritical agenda is clear? Or are you saying you "can't stand" your own position?

I know that, just wanted to reply to Angrilu. Thats not world changing, right?
What is my hypo agenda in your POV?
I am here to balance the one-sided Sky bashing, and put Froomes performances in context. I think thats a good agenda. If we would all agree on everything, discussing would be a little boring, right?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
robow7 said:
Lemond often stated that there were very few if any surprises back in the old days. You raced against the same people 200 days a year and knew who could do what and when and under what conditions. There were very few Diaz, Shumacher, Kohl that came from nowhere. Just sayin'

Exactly :)... You put everything in one post when I need tons of it.
 
Feb 22, 2011
462
0
0
Visit site
Angliru said:
My bad. Ignore my post.:eek:

No, your post is very apt. The question of "realism" regarding Froome while attacking his critics by ascribing imaginary viewpoints to them exists regardless of which specific riders are up for comparison. Distilling it down leads to the question whether accepting Froome's style of doping to win a Tour de France and add other palmares truly represents a "realistic" view or simply an attempt to mask fanboy trolling in an air of laissez faire legitimacy. Declaring Froome's BP manipulation somehow "better" than a generic semi-pro jacking his crit to perform well in a race or tour attended by pro teams because it's still miserable weather in Europe is at best a side issue and at worst merely trolling in defense of a favored rider. Either way, the question of which doping model is "best" could be hashed out in a different thread, or with a simple poll question--if it hasn't already.

The topic is Froome, the location is the clinic. Attacking and questioning the motives of people who are examining Froome from a doping standpoint appears the very definition of OT to me.

It's the Clinic. It's "Froome Talk Only" in the context of "the only place to discuss doping." Not liking when people discuss your preferred rider as a doper requires one post in the thread before returning to the world of realism outside the clinic.

And I neither know nor care about Froome's personal life.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
skippythepinhead said:
No, your post is very apt...

I accept your POV w/o calling me out directly. But...
I just dont see what Sky does different than others (unless they are the first who successfully applied gene manipulation).
More likely: Froome was clean before his transfo, while others doped from youth on. That makes Froome look worse than he actually is. Most likely he is on the same workplace doping as everyone else does. Keep it low, inbounds, take care of your career.
And that means I am a fanboy? Because I dont see him as the lone evil doper of the lone evil doping team (Sky)? :eek: That is ridiculous.

And yes, complete jacked-up guys who dont take care of tomorrow, go all-in because of a weak personality, risking no less than instant death are worse in my opinion.

Its me, I liked Jaermann and his description of circumstances: Dope to have your position back, but dont get crazy like plastic-blood-Gianetti, or try-all-everything like Virenque...

And now all peace: Looking forward some new Froome surprises and annoying Sky tactics. And after all is said and done, I will enjoy the clinic meltdown when Froome won the TdF. :)
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,112
0
0
Visit site
robow7 said:
Lemond often stated that there were very few if any surprises back in the old days. You raced against the same people 200 days a year and knew who could do what and when and under what conditions. There were very few Diaz, Shumacher, Kohl that came from nowhere. Just sayin'

They all knew when to take their iron shots, just like they do now. Just sayin'.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I know that, just wanted to reply to Angrilu. Thats not world changing, right?
What is my hypo agenda in your POV?
I am here to balance the one-sided Sky bashing, and put Froomes performances in context. I think thats a good agenda. If we would all agree on everything, discussing would be a little boring, right?

Agendas are pointless because they don't deal in reality, they deal with one's wish for reality. Thanks for admitting to yours.
 
In what sense is Froome doping just to "keep up with the others"? Yeah, Horner was the most disgustingly obvious doped performance this side of the millenium, but let's not forget that Froome has gone from just another guy at the rear end of the peloton to being a record-breaking watt machine. The only thing that separates him from the rest is that he's kept at it for a longer period of time, and that makes him worse and even more of a fraud in my eyes.

Horner used the last big opportunity of his career to grab a prestigious win and then disappear back into obscurity. If Froome can keep his freakish form for another few years he'll be writing himself into the history books like other enormous frauds like Indurain and Lance. The fact that Big Mig hasn't been popped yet is an absolute farce. At least Lance had the common decency to let himself get caught by being a D-bag. Let's hope the Froome bubble bursts sooner rather than later too.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Saint Unix said:
In what sense is Froome doping just to "keep up with the others"?

Since if he would go all-in-over-the-top once in a while, he would have high variance results like Horner, Diaz & cohorts, Mosquera, DiLuca, Santambrogio, Cobo Acebo, etc...

Now I hear the arguments coming in: What if Froome goes all-in year-long? Well, I think he simply would be dead by now. Even with the siberia method, he would have a higher variance in his results, since there needs to be some time to re-gain lost blood cells from the year-round blood taking and infusion... Thus much more likely is micro-dosing, together with weight loss, and then some...

Saint Unix said:
Yeah, Horner was the most disgustingly obvious doped performance this side of the millenium,

Absolutely... and the other side of the millenium too.

Saint Unix said:
but let's not forget that Froome has gone from just another guy at the rear end of the peloton to being a record-breaking watt machine.

That is a mystery. No doubt... But other than having the very unlikely golden-formula-dope that others dont have, what is the most likely explanation?

Saint Unix said:
The only thing that separates him from the rest is that he's kept at it for a longer period of time, and that makes him worse and even more of a fraud in my eyes.

In my POV, its the complete opposite. Riders being around the top year long with low variance are less suspect. It was always like that... until the Epo/transfusion era started: Riders nowhere to be seen > transfusion > boom a complete new rider with insane performance jumps in every July > back to normal. And the same the next year, the next, the...

Saint Unix said:
Horner used the last big opportunity of his career to grab a prestigious win and then disappear back into obscurity.

What sets him miles apart from others:
1) improving the older he got until reaching his highest w/kg aged 42 :eek:
2) doing his hercules thing being injured, one-legged, out of training, and/or half dead.

Even if only one of the two happened it would be the most suspect performance ever. But in combination it blew up even the wildest immagination.

Its the most blatant cheating in the history of pro sports... and this history is full of examples.

Saint Unix said:
The fact that Big Mig hasn't been popped yet is an absolute farce. At least Lance had the common decency to let himself get caught by being a D-bag. Let's hope the Froome bubble bursts sooner rather than later too.

I think Indurain will go unharmed. A sad fact indeed. The first complete chemical champ. Reminds me of Ivan Drago. The immage when the syringes are prepared while some freaky scientists put numbers in the computer.
 
There's two major flaws with your argumentation, I think:

1) You forget that there are documented cases of very consistent year-long dopers, Valverde being the prime example.
2) You don't take into account the possibility that blood doping might actually have been superseded by other methods (typically associated with weight-loss PEDs), which, if true, would render the whole cycle of withdrawal and infusion largely moot. Yes, you acknowledge micro-dosing and weight-loss drugs could be part of the cocktail here, but you put that forward with the assumption that it'd be a comparatively minor doping method, not "all-in", even though in this hypothetical scenario it might well have become the preferred, most prevalent and most effective doping method among the top pros.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
There's two major flaws with your argumentation, I think:

1) You forget that there are documented cases of very consistent year-long dopers, Valverde being the prime example.
2) You don't take into account the possibility that blood doping might actually have been superseded by other methods (typically associated with weight-loss PEDs), which, if true, would render the whole cycle of withdrawal and infusion largely moot. Yes, you acknowledge micro-dosing and weight-loss drugs could be part of the cocktail here, but you put that forward with the assumption that it'd be a comparatively minor doping method, not "all-in", even though in this hypothetical scenario it might well have become the preferred, most prevalent and most effective doping method among the top pros.

Some valid points here.
1) But if we argue that Valv-Piti was indeed doping year-round, how do we explain LA then? AFIK, Tyler said the blood taking and transfusions took its toll on performance and thus results. How did Valv get around this un-preventable low points? Valv certainly was the much better natural rider and thus got results outside of the GTs too (w/o hefty doses of extra blood). But thats only speculation. I need to wait for his tell-all book. If it ever comes...
2) If there are better methods than blood doping now, how in the world could Horner happen? He beat all the young top trained riders from top teams (who certainly have the same formula of the "weight-loss-cocktail"). The most likely scenario: Roche & co kept their BP in check, going with the usual micro-dosing, while Horner came off his blood camp and just rode into the sun, leaving everybody behind him with a big grin on his face.

P.S.: @ mods... I really tried to get around Horner. But its impossible when discussing and comparing doping performances. He set the standard. So sorry for bringing him up again. I have no better idea... its still about Froome. Horner is just used a cruch for important points to make.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
red_flanders said:
Agendas are pointless because they don't deal in reality, they deal with one's wish for reality. Thanks for admitting to yours.

Then I dont have a agenda. I thought agenda means a formed opinion with arguments... My fault to get that wrong.
 
Feb 24, 2014
516
0
0
Visit site
TailWindHome said:

That was some love fest there... cheer leaders all the way.

The bilharzia cure was the reason for his overnight transformation. Just watching that would nearly make you believe this poor kid made good from Africa is the greatest sports story of all time!!! I can see why people watching that would not have any doubts.

Better get back to the clinic to ensure I don't get caught by the spell.
 
Feb 24, 2015
241
0
0
Visit site
Seriously Foxy

Firstly if you have read anything in the clinic you know that it is not just a case of bashing Sky and every one else is OK
There is probably not a rider or team who are above suspicion in here and probably rightly so in my opinion.

Secondly the Froome debate is due to him being the most ridiculous on the most ridiculous team supported by a bunch of xenophobic blind British fanboys and excusers on the planet. Even more than the LA fanboys of old.

Lastly please do some research and catch up with cheating methods before trying to make silly arguments relating to how he is on top form for the year so he is better than some.

And I deliberately use cheating methods rather than doping methods in the context as it is obvious that there are certain riders and teams who are protected and therefore this is cheating in the context of the sport and the system and not just their own doping protocols.

If you seriously think froome is acceptable and you can ENJOY his style then I would suggest that maybe posting ion the clinic is probably the most effective definition of a "exercise in futility" that i could possibly come up with.

By all means if you have something to say that can actually make anyone think froome is not the fraud that the people in here think he is we would welcome the discussion I am sure. But so far all I can see you have done is try to prove your justification for liking him

Just do what others do
Say the sport is dirty but this is who I like
End of.
 
deeno1975 said:
That was some love fest there... cheer leaders all the way.

The bilharzia cure was the reason for his overnight transformation. Just watching that would nearly make you believe this poor kid made good from Africa is the greatest sports story of all time!!! I can see why people watching that would not have any doubts.

Better get back to the clinic to ensure I don't get caught by the spell.

Brailsford tells the sandshoes story again. Walsh looking very relaxed. Says university athletes can't be very good so that meant he had talent :rolleyes:
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
3
0
Visit site
deeno1975 said:
That was some love fest there... cheer leaders all the way.

The bilharzia cure was the reason for his overnight transformation. Just watching that would nearly make you believe this poor kid made good from Africa is the greatest sports story of all time!!! I can see why people watching that would not have any doubts.

Better get back to the clinic to ensure I don't get caught by the spell.

If you want a real circlejerk check out the thread on bikeretard. They are like scientologists over there. Scary stuff.
 
deeno1975 said:
That was some love fest there... cheer leaders all the way.

The bilharzia cure was the reason for his overnight transformation. Just watching that would nearly make you believe this poor kid made good from Africa is the greatest sports story of all time!!! I can see why people watching that would not have any doubts.

Better get back to the clinic to ensure I don't get caught by the spell.

Wow..it's a story about his life, its going to be a "love fest" what do you want them to say, chris is a doper because some sad folk in the clinic say he is doper?
 
rick james said:
Wow..it's a story about his life, its going to be a "love fest" what do you want them to say, chris is a doper because some sad folk in the clinic say he is doper?

You know, people have done life stories on athletes that were fair, honest and critical as well as admiring when the subject matter warranted it.

PR is boring. As is mis-information and other forms of BS.
 
Mar 12, 2009
2,521
0
0
Visit site
rick james said:
Wow..it's a story about his life, its going to be a "love fest" what do you want them to say, chris is a doper because some sad folk in the clinic say he is doper?

I look forward to see how you consider his -never seen before, even in cycling- transformation? :)
 

TRENDING THREADS