Re:
Its funny because when I talk to casual fans or some of my British friends, they always tell me I am too negative and thta Froome is clean, they think its because its not someone from my country that wins... When I ask the people that think his clean how long they watched cycling or how much, its either, casual watchers or in the case of alot of my British friends, since Wiggins got into pro racing... I ask them if they saw the tour in the 80's or 90's and they reply no... They have no clue about whats normal and how its been historical..
Alot of them even say its very far off from Armstrong in terms of results...... They call me a hater of cycling when I tell them I was sure of ie Riis was doped when he won the tour, to make an example... its very easy to spot..
But the worse part of it all is that all my British friends claim that Froom's disease is the solo reason why he was not a world class rider before... its the solo arguement.. When I tell them about Armstrong and the similarity they tell me.. "its not even close to being the same"
Sky might be good at science tbh.. who knows, but nobody pulls stuff like this over so few years while nobody else does... no secrets are forever.
I just hope that in a near future that radio communication and cycling computers etc, will be banned.. atleast then some of the riders with tactical sense and iq will have a chance even if they are not always the strongest.
Saint Unix said:You'd be shocked at how many idiots here in Norway are lapping up the nonsense without a doubt in their mind. The so-called expert commentator on our main broadcaster of the Tour can't seem to shut up about all the fantastic work Sky are doing in sports science. For casual fans of cycling, or endurance sports in general, I fully understand that it's easy to dismiss the doping claims when a guy who has trained Grete Waitz and Ingrid Kristiansen to greatness in long-distance running keeps harping on about how fantastic Sky are and how effective the anti-doping work and the bio passport is. He's supposed to be an authority on the subject, after all, even if he hasn't been relevant or right since the 80's.
The PR work Sky are putting in is convincing the masses, just like USPS did in their day. People are either too lazy, too stupid or just don't care enough about cycling to look under the hood and see what's actually happening.
Its funny because when I talk to casual fans or some of my British friends, they always tell me I am too negative and thta Froome is clean, they think its because its not someone from my country that wins... When I ask the people that think his clean how long they watched cycling or how much, its either, casual watchers or in the case of alot of my British friends, since Wiggins got into pro racing... I ask them if they saw the tour in the 80's or 90's and they reply no... They have no clue about whats normal and how its been historical..
Alot of them even say its very far off from Armstrong in terms of results...... They call me a hater of cycling when I tell them I was sure of ie Riis was doped when he won the tour, to make an example... its very easy to spot..
But the worse part of it all is that all my British friends claim that Froom's disease is the solo reason why he was not a world class rider before... its the solo arguement.. When I tell them about Armstrong and the similarity they tell me.. "its not even close to being the same"
Sky might be good at science tbh.. who knows, but nobody pulls stuff like this over so few years while nobody else does... no secrets are forever.
I just hope that in a near future that radio communication and cycling computers etc, will be banned.. atleast then some of the riders with tactical sense and iq will have a chance even if they are not always the strongest.