• 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 683 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

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.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
being punched is not on. was it a mistimed push perhaps?

do you believe it?

Sky and the riders like Froome and LRP think they can lie to the public and they lie to a guy like Guinness and Guinness does the freekin stenography. If he wants to do corporate communications he could get a much better salary and a raise in the prive sector.

I dont believe Froome leading the story about his dirty weekend with Cound at the hotel and the hotel porter not ringing up at 7am or whenever.

I dont believe LRP was called an @rsehole by someone when LRP confronted the "coward".

I dont believe on the same day, LRP was punched during the stage when he was coming in behind the vroom group.

because, if they both went down as he said yesterday, THEY BOTH DEFINITELY would be in Brailsford's PR release. Brailsford has gone on the front foot (cricket analogy <aggressive>) with respect to PR releases, and this would have been sympathy inducing PR. ergo, they did not happen, LRP is lying thru his little teeth, his milk teeth.

I dont believe anyone hacked Froome's training data.

can you see a pattern and a trend in the last 2 weeks? Sky have been lying more egregiously in the PR than normal. They raised their game to Lance level.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Do you think it's indicative of an underlying unrest or fairly new but ongoing phenomenon?

also, Walsh was free to publish the autobiography about stealing kittens from the kindergarten across the road to feed to a python, another lie.

then there is Chris Froome tweeting or press releasing from the paula radcliffe script about, i) more testing, c: the tweet on Tenerife.
ii) the Radcliffe trope on freezing blood and urine for future testing*

*future testing that either never will happen, or they never retrieved n froze the urine and blood. heck, the IAAF had a file on Radcliffe's fuzzy blood numbers, lots of MCE instrument calibration errors there no doubt, we need to call JV to get on that one, o' where art thou jonathan? we need you to heal the MCEs and a loaf of fishes[sic] and tortured metaphors
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Do you think it's indicative of an underlying unrest or fairly new but ongoing phenomenon?

oh, here is the lay person amateur psychology shrink 101. LRP is just p!$$ed.

Wigans was just p!$$ed.

Millar was just p!$$ed.

see there is an insider law, and an outsider law. we are outsiders. we are not allowed to snipe from the cheapseats. I would get p!$$ed off to if in my profession, i was getting sniped at everyday too. I can understand this on a human psychology level. its a priori. humans have emotions and some are more sensitive. actually, a reaction from Wigans Froome and LRP would indicate they are lesser sociopathy spectrum than Lance, or lesser anti-social personality disorder spectrum, well, they would not even be on neither spectrum would they.

nah, they get p!$$ed. its understandable.

and its understandable they lie. They have no real choice. To leave the sport is not a real choice. To not compete at the front of the field, is not a real choice for them neither. It might be a choice you consider real, and a possibility for them, but, it is not within the parameters i put forward in this thought experiment.

The insider rule, you are allowed to dope, as long as you do not test positive and embarrass the sport.

The outsider rules are the technical rulebook we are aware. I actually lean closer to the insider rule. but maintain my right to snipe from the sidelines as an outsider, because it is quite fun.
 
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Singer01 said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Singer01 said:
being good at debating and being in the right are 2 completely different things. if all of the sky accusers on here sat in a room with Michael Mansfield QC you would all come out thinking sky were as clean as fresh snow.

Singer01 said:
awesome, accusing others of not reading well, show me where i said court case. go on, i beg you. since the rest of your erroneous argument hinges on that i'll not bother with the rest of your post.

Michael Mansfield QC kinda implies we're in a court room yeah?

That aside, your claim that Mr Mansfield could convince me Sky are clean is a bit of a piss take yeah? It's not an emotional response I have, thinking Sky riders are doped.

a) no
b) how can you state that you believing sky are not doping is not an emotional thing, then suggest that someone would be unable to convince you, no matter how powerful their argument or use of facts, that this was not the case? i hope you never get to serve on a jury.

Good god.

a. QC means queen's counsel. That's a term for a court lawyer / barrister.
b. State one single fact that clears Sky. Go on. Just one. That's where my confidence comes from. I hope you never breed.

a. Nope, Queens Councel means Queens Counsel, not a court lawyer/barrister. and as already stated, there were 2 separate paragraphs, you have them all jumbled up in your head.
b. we both know i can't, and will never be able to prove this. just as you cannot, at this moment in time, prove that they are not.

see how i responded to your comments. you still haven't responded to
b) how can you state that you believing sky are not doping is not an emotional thing, then suggest that someone would be unable to convince you, no matter how powerful their argument or use of facts, that this was not the case?[/
 
bigcog said:
Cycle Chic said:
**** the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum 10m10 minutes ago
Vayer asks about the violent accelerations and the heart rate not moving and asks is it a motorised bike connected to a blue tooth system

Finally !!

How would that work then ? Blue tooth connection from what to where exactly ? Or is it another bs fantasy ?

to the team car - could explain why he gets on the radio before every attack and while he was climbing on Ventoux...they control the speed.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Re: Re:

Singer01 said:
see how i responded to your comments. you still haven't responded to
b) how can you state that you believing sky are not doping is not an emotional thing, then suggest that someone would be unable to convince you, no matter how powerful their argument or use of facts, that this was not the case?

Um. I said Sky riders are doping. Not Sky. A very important distinction. I also did not say, "not doping", an amazing slip you have made twice now. I'll quote it now to help you out:

It's not an emotional response I have, thinking Sky riders are doped.

Your question is pointless - you are asking "how can it not be emotional?", after i have told you it isn't.

The only other option is, "because it's a rational thought".

I weigh all the evidence -- and there is a *** tonne of it -- and arrive at the conclusion that makes the most sense: Froome (and before him Wiggo was) is doped.

There is nothing, and I will ask you to please look up that word "nothing" that someone can tell me to change my mind, because if there was something, believe me, Brailsford would have said it by now.

If you are making up some fictitious fact, pulling it out of your nether regions and then saying, "ah hah! this piece of evidence proves conclusively they are clean" as your argument that someone could convince me, I can just as easily say, "but ah hah! I pull out some random piece of heretofore never mentioned proof that completely refutes your proof".

A pointless exercise.

So come back to the real world, allow me to weigh the evidence at hand, and arrive at a dispassionate conclusion that Froome is doped.
 
Cycle Chic said:
bigcog said:
Cycle Chic said:
**** the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum 10m10 minutes ago
Vayer asks about the violent accelerations and the heart rate not moving and asks is it a motorised bike connected to a blue tooth system

Finally !!

How would that work then ? Blue tooth connection from what to where exactly ? Or is it another bs fantasy ?

to the team car - could explain why he gets on the radio before every attack and while he was climbing on Ventoux...they control the speed.

Didn't know blue tooth would work at such distances, is it a new standard of the protocol ?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Cycle Chic said:
bigcog said:
Cycle Chic said:
**** the hypocrisy ‏@Digger_forum 10m10 minutes ago
Vayer asks about the violent accelerations and the heart rate not moving and asks is it a motorised bike connected to a blue tooth system

Finally !!

How would that work then ? Blue tooth connection from what to where exactly ? Or is it another bs fantasy ?

to the team car - could explain why he gets on the radio before every attack and while he was climbing on Ventoux...they control the speed.

Bluetooth has a standard range of ~10m. Wireless makes far more sense - the range there is far more easily ~2km.

Where is the receive module mounted?
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,854
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Singer01 said:
see how i responded to your comments. you still haven't responded to
b) how can you state that you believing sky are not doping is not an emotional thing, then suggest that someone would be unable to convince you, no matter how powerful their argument or use of facts, that this was not the case?

Um. I said Sky riders are doping. Not Sky. A very important distinction. I also did not say, "not doping", an amazing slip you have made twice now. I'll quote it now to help you out:

It's not an emotional response I have, thinking Sky riders are doped.

Your question is pointless - you are asking "how can it not be emotional?", after i have told you it isn't.

The only other option is, "because it's a rational thought".

I weigh all the evidence -- and there is a **** tonne of it -- and arrive at the conclusion that makes the most sense: Froome (and before him Wiggo was) is doped.

There is nothing, and I will ask you to please look up that word "nothing" that someone can tell me to change my mind, because if there was something, believe me, Brailsford would have said it by now.

If you are making up some fictitious fact, pulling it out of your nether regions and then saying, "ah hah! this piece of evidence proves conclusively they are clean" as your argument that someone could convince me, I can just as easily say, "but ah hah! I pull out some random piece of heretofore never mentioned proof that completely refutes your proof".

A pointless exercise.

So come back to the real world, allow me to weigh the evidence at hand, and arrive at a dispassionate conclusion that Froome is doped.
singer wiggo has the least two decades of evidence modelling and trends for a heuristic analysis

we need a not normal hashtag
 
Re: Re:

Red Lobster said:
DrSahl said:
Soon Froome will attack and take 30 sec or more on the others

No, apparently Thomas is now so strong that even Froome had no interest in a quicker pace.

Indeed... but this is nothing new.. this is just history repeating itself. Its weird too see all the clinic post being posted in the normal forum... but I guess its like you know...

Maybe Thomas should join another team and then we could atleast get a more even race ^^
 
Jul 5, 2011
858
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Do you think it's indicative of an underlying unrest or fairly new but ongoing phenomenon?

also, Walsh was free to publish the autobiography about stealing kittens from the kindergarten across the road to feed to a python, another lie.

then there is Chris Froome tweeting or press releasing from the paula radcliffe script about, i) more testing, c: the tweet on Tenerife.
ii) the Radcliffe trope on freezing blood and urine for future testing*

*future testing that either never will happen, or they never retrieved n froze the urine and blood. heck, the IAAF had a file on Radcliffe's fuzzy blood numbers, lots of MCE instrument calibration errors there no doubt, we need to call JV to get on that one, o' where art thou jonathan? we need you to heal the MCEs and a loaf of fishes[sic] and tortured metaphors
I think quite a bit of this undermines what should be the arguement here.
, ie is he doping and are Sky lying through their teeth.
Like his 'dirty weekend' - he was with his wife for Gods sake. References to the Python story are no longer helpful either. If he had a cruel streak as a kid it doesn't mean he's still delinquent. Why undermine the valid points you make with ridiculous asides that just show you up as vindictive with some axe to grind that has nothing to do with the doping question?