Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 690 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Re: Re:

DominicDecoco said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
How do we know he was really doused with urine? Was he tested for traces of urine on his skin? This is all just a bunch of innuendo and people suggesting things based on nothing but one person's account. Until there is a positive test for urine on Froome, this is all just a bunch of unsubstantiated rumor and supposition.

I think this could be a cry for sympathy. He's blaming journalists for this phantom urine. Until there is actual proof of this supposed urine, I'm going to have to hold back on my condemnation.
The only place you'd see nonsense like this is in The Clinic. Absolute f'ucking bonkers place this.
Not all are like this. Some serious posters like Tonton or MI for example, actually contribute good posts. Unfortunately, those posts are hidden between spam "posts" like this.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Well we just have Froome's word. I didn't see it, and I watched the stage. Some QC would tear down Froome's "evidence" in a British court. I mean, perhaps it happened. I'm not saying it didn't. We just shouldn't jump to conclusions when it has not yet been established in court beyond reasonable doubt. No proof has been given.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
There not defamations of character. And there is such a think as freedom of speech. And if one takes freedom of speech at face value, then a person doesn't have the right to be offended.

@DominicDecoco, I think that ChewbaccaDefense's post might have been satire.
 
Jul 6, 2015
176
0
0
Re: Re:

Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious?!
Serious, Michelle Froome does have the right to defend her husbands character. Just as we would,if anyone in our,family would if these sorts of accusations were being thrown about. Froome has already said he is willing to undergo independent testing, beyond current regulation. All through sections of the French press disputing his ability to the point of saying he is somehow cheating. That is in every sense of the law defamation. Journalists are not doing the core of their role in reporting facts, but rather pilling on conjecture.
 
Jul 6, 2015
176
0
0
Re: Re:

Afrank said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
There not defamations of character. And there is such a think as freedom of speech. And if one takes freedom of speech at face value, then a person doesn't have the right to be offended.

@DominicDecoco, I think that ChewbaccaDefense's post might have been satire.
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations. Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
 
Jul 18, 2015
238
9
4,045
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious?!
Serious, Michelle Froome does have the right to defend her husbands character. Just as we would,if anyone in our,family would if these sorts of accusations were being thrown about. Froome has already said he is willing to undergo independent testing, beyond current regulation. All through sections of the French press disputing his ability to the point of,saying he is,somehow cheating. That is in every sense of the law defamation. Journalists are not doing the core of their role in reporting facts, but rather pilling on conjecture.
I'm ok with her defending him, that's normal. But why the French media can't make its own point believing that Froome is somehow cheating? This question is asked by many cycling fans, and you can see it with your eyes live on tv. Something is not normal, I didn't see this kind of unreal attacks since Armstrong era. And it's not only Froome, the whole Sky team is suspiciously strong. Froome and Sky can sue them... but they don't and I wonder why. They learned from Armstrong, don't be the bad guy because you're gonna end up in a pile of ***.
 
Jul 7, 2014
149
0
0
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations. Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
which sections ?
 
Jul 13, 2009
504
0
0
Re:

SeriousSam said:
Well we just have Froome's word.
And Froome said the assailant called him a "dopeur" whereas the French word is "drogué" so it was probably an English speaker after all
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,821
0
0
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
Afrank said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
There not defamations of character. And there is such a think as freedom of speech. And if one takes freedom of speech at face value, then a person doesn't have the right to be offended.

@DominicDecoco, I think that ChewbaccaDefense's post might have been satire.
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations. Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
Two questions come up here for me.

1. Are the statements made about Froome false? It's not proven yet whether he is doping or not, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is. Armstrong doped for years and it was only completely 100% proven (meaning no one could say he didn't dope anymore) when he admitted to it himself.

2. Are the statements that have been made really defamation, or are they criticism of Froome? Because if they are the latter, then Froome by being a public figure open himself up to a certain level of criticism by others.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
Afrank said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
There not defamations of character. And there is such a think as freedom of speech. And if one takes freedom of speech at face value, then a person doesn't have the right to be offended.

@DominicDecoco, I think that ChewbaccaDefense's post might have been satire.
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations. Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
As a 'independent sports writer', you would know that Mr Cound is out of line.

That the Froome's lawyers have not been sent in shows that the Froome's are not standing on solid ground. The discussions are whether Froome is performing legitimately or with PEDs. Lots of discussion point to a doped rider.

This is a forum, we can discuss pretty much anything, whether factual or not. If you were an 'independent sports writer' of pro cycling you would know Froome is standing on thin ice.

Not too many Tour De France winners won it on Bread and Water. Sky would have the world beleive that Froome who showed no GT podium ability, who they were trying to offload to other teams, magically transformed at 26.

'As a independent sports writer' who has makes a living from sport you would also know that the testing done by the federations is a joke.

Puhleease dont come in here trying to throw your weigh around 'as a independent sports writer' because there are plenty who will rip you a new one with their intimate knowledge of the sport.
 
Jul 6, 2015
176
0
0
Re: Re:

Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious?!
Serious, Michelle Froome does have the right to defend her husbands character. Just as we would,if anyone in our,family would if these sorts of accusations were being thrown about. Froome has already said he is willing to undergo independent testing, beyond current regulation. All through sections of the French press disputing his ability to the point of,saying he is,somehow cheating. That is in every sense of the law defamation. Journalists are not doing the core of their role in reporting facts, but rather pilling on conjecture.
I'm ok with her defending him, that's normal. But why the French media can't make its own point believing that Froome is somehow cheating? This question is asked by many cycling fans, and you can see it with your eyes live on tv. Something is not normal, I didn't see this kind of unreal attacks since Armstrong era. And it's not only Froome, the whole Sky team is suspiciously strong. Froome and Sky can sue them... but they don't and I wonder why. They learned from Armstrong, don't be the bad guy because you're gonna end up in a pile of ****.

They are strong for a reason it's because they actually train hard and have a real pedigree in the sport. Sky have not taken legal action out of respect for the sport. To not put the sport into further turmoil and in essence into a position of crisis. Trust has to be built not only within the sport, in its image and it's standing within its own supporter base. Professional cycling is at a crossroads, very much like a rider being put into difficulty on a climb. Venerable and susceptible to attack. It's very difficult to see a rider and a team go through this turmoil. Let alone the sport we clearly love.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
How do we know he was really doused with urine? Was he tested for traces of urine on his skin? This is all just a bunch of innuendo and people suggesting things based on nothing but one person's account. Until there is a positive test for urine on Froome, this is all just a bunch of unsubstantiated rumor and supposition.

I think this could be a cry for sympathy. He's blaming journalists for this phantom urine. Until there is actual proof of this supposed urine, I'm going to have to hold back on my condemnation.
For those who missed the brilliance of this, remove the word Urine and add PED and you have the skybot repsonse!

Froome never tested positive for thrown urine............ :D
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations.
Except there are very sound foundations. I'll name just one: Scientifcally he's over the edge of what is to be expected. There's absolutely no reason reporting this is in anyway off limits.

You might be a sportswriter writing fantasies about your sports-hero. A real journalist asks the hard questions. And the answers are crystal clear;it's extremely likely that Sky and Frooome are involved in doping. Not reporting about this... is bad journalism.

Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
It's a good thing you know nothing of the law as you are also displaying a clear lack of the grasp of the facts . :

Sorry Sky, that you think it's actually okay not to report on clear suspicuous things is shocking. Censorship is horrible and that you support this shows how much your emotions cloud your judgement. As a real sportswriter you should be angry at people trying to muzzle the press.
 
Re: Re:

MikeS369 said:
S2Sturges said:
SeriousSam said:
lol that sprint at the end today. just too much raw energy

Plus he was just being a **** to show Quintana who's his daddy, real sportsmanship, that....
Yes indeed. Showed himself as the true POS he is.
So he's a POS for trying to beat a rival to the Tour crown? Where in the rules does it say you have to be nice? You win by having a quicker time than anyone else - every second counts, as it did in 1989.
 
Sep 14, 2011
1,980
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
How do we know he was really doused with urine? Was he tested for traces of urine on his skin? This is all just a bunch of innuendo and people suggesting things based on nothing but one person's account. Until there is a positive test for urine on Froome, this is all just a bunch of unsubstantiated rumor and supposition.

I think this could be a cry for sympathy. He's blaming journalists for this phantom urine. Until there is actual proof of this supposed urine, I'm going to have to hold back on my condemnation.
For those who missed the brilliance of this, remove the word Urine and add PED and you have the skybot repsonse!

Froome never tested positive for thrown urine............ :D
I found it amusing too.
 
Apr 7, 2015
656
0
0
Irony is lost on people emotionally involved. It is nice to see the Muscular Christianity Gordonstoun crowd getting their knickers in a twist. Did they catch the culprit yet? It was probably Vayer...
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
MikeS369 said:
S2Sturges said:
SeriousSam said:
lol that sprint at the end today. just too much raw energy

Plus he was just being a **** to show Quintana who's his daddy, real sportsmanship, that....
Yes indeed. Showed himself as the true POS he is.
So he's a POS for trying to beat a rival to the Tour crown? Where in the rules does it say you have to be nice? You win by having a quicker time than anyone else - every second counts, as it did in 1989.
And the 13 seconds that cost him a Vuelta. POS? Get a grip of yourself you weapon
 
Re:

Lyon said:
Irony is lost on people emotionally involved. It is nice to see the Muscular Christianity Gordonstoun crowd getting their knickers in a twist. Did they catch the culprit yet? It was probably Vayer...
You're beginning to sound like Blackcat with the Gordonstoun stuff. Massive chips on your shoulders ...
 
Jul 18, 2015
238
9
4,045
Re: Re:

Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or being serious?!
Serious, Michelle Froome does have the right to defend her husbands character. Just as we would,if anyone in our,family would if these sorts of accusations were being thrown about. Froome has already said he is willing to undergo independent testing, beyond current regulation. All through sections of the French press disputing his ability to the point of,saying he is,somehow cheating. That is in every sense of the law defamation. Journalists are not doing the core of their role in reporting facts, but rather pilling on conjecture.
I'm ok with her defending him, that's normal. But why the French media can't make its own point believing that Froome is somehow cheating? This question is asked by many cycling fans, and you can see it with your eyes live on tv. Something is not normal, I didn't see this kind of unreal attacks since Armstrong era. And it's not only Froome, the whole Sky team is suspiciously strong. Froome and Sky can sue them... but they don't and I wonder why. They learned from Armstrong, don't be the bad guy because you're gonna end up in a pile of ****.

They are strong for a reason it's because they actually train hard and have a real pedigree in the sport. Sky have not taken legal action out of respect for the sport. To not put the sport into further turmoil and in essence into a position of crisis. Trust has to be built not only within the sport, in its image and it's standing within its own supporter base. Professional cycling is at a crossroads, very much like a rider being put into difficulty on a climb. Venerable and susceptible to attack. It's very difficult to see a rider and a team go through this turmoil. Let alone the sport we clearly love.
Well, if you believe this, you are pretty naive in my opinion. And it seems right now that the cycling is getting more hate than ever and Sky is the reason. The fact that you clearly believe that Sky is riding like this just with tap water and great training is pretty shocking. But it's your opinion, anyone it's entitled to one.
 
Jul 7, 2014
149
0
0
Re: Re:

Two questions come up here for me.

1. Are the statements made about Froome false? It's not proven yet whether he is doping or not, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is. Armstrong doped for years and it was only completely 100% proven (meaning no one could say he didn't dope anymore) when he admitted to it himself.

2. Are the statements that have been made really defamation, or are they criticism of Froome? Because if they are the latter, then Froome by being a public figure open himself up to a certain level of criticism by others.
They didn't said he was cheating or criticized him. One of them, the always stupid Thierry Adam, asked the others to tell what they think about what Froome did and the 3 others awkwardly explaining that it was confusing to see Froome attacking that way while all the others were struggling.
 
Oct 25, 2012
181
0
3,680
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Afrank said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Melo said:
Well, she's a nice woman. After she posted this she closed her twitter account.

She has every right to defend her husband. Those claims by sections of the French press are defamation of character. If it were not for Froome's grace and class off the bike those journalists would be in court. It's pure jealousy that a British team dare to win clean. Froome will have the last laugh.
There not defamations of character. And there is such a think as freedom of speech. And if one takes freedom of speech at face value, then a person doesn't have the right to be offended.

@DominicDecoco, I think that ChewbaccaDefense's post might have been satire.
I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, as a independent sports writer myself. I cannot publish an article where I in effect write false statements based on unsound foundations. Leading to anyone's character being tarnished without fact. There is a line a fine one in law and common decency between freedom of speech and defamation. Sections of the French press are skirting very close to that borderline.
As a 'independent sports writer', you would know that Mr Cound is out of line.

That the Froome's lawyers have not been sent in shows that the Froome's are not standing on solid ground. The discussions are whether Froome is performing legitimately or with PEDs. Lots of discussion point to a doped rider.

Come on , if he was to start bringing the lawyers in you would claim he's just acting like Armstrong and flexing his and Skys financial muscle.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Froome could've avoided all this. He could have been completely transparent after his 2013 win and shown everyone his values from his time at Barloworld till his TdF 2013 win. But he hasn't. He races in what is known as the dirtiest sport in the world and he expects people to believe him when he says he is clean, yet is racing as fast as known dopers. That ship sailed long ago. Sky and Froome know all this hence the accusations and the shooting the messengers, rather than the transparency which could easily clear this all up.

Sorry, this sport still reeks from top to bottom. Urine in the face, i doubt it. More lies. Sky just happen to be the new top dogs in a dirty sport. If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY