• 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. Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 691 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 16, 2011
10,819
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

difdauf said:
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.

Don't see how there could be anything wrong with saying that. Certainly doesn't sound like defamation of character. Do you have a link so I could see for myself what exactly was said?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Chaddy said:
Benotti69 said:
Sky'sthelimit said:
Afrank 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.

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.

The reason he aint bringing the lawyers is because he would be expected to submit himself to independent testing, eg his vo2max etc and that would show the guy is not naturally as gifted as Sky would have the world believe.

Best to have every think you dope rather than convince them you dope. ;)
 
Re: Re:

Poursuivant said:
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

I bet he was gutted about that - but that was team orders that they hung on to too long. Quintana is a rival, especially so without the TTs this year - if he takes a second today that could be all that is needed after next Saturday. I'm not having a go, just stating that you have to take every advantage whenever you can.
 
Jul 7, 2014
149
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Afrank said:
difdauf said:
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.

Don't see how there could be anything wrong with saying that. Certainly doesn't sound like defamation of character. Do you have a link so I could see for myself what exactly was said?

Jalabert : "On s'est senti un peu mal à l'aise devant cette facilité qui contrastait avec la détresse vécue par les trois premiers du Tour de l'année dernière"
Vasseur : "On a l'impression que le vélo pédale tout seul. C'est surprenant et même déroutant pour ses adversaires. On a l'impression qu'il est en difficulté et, subitement, il s'envole"
Fottorino : "Il y a quelque chose d'un peu surréaliste, comment se fait-il qu'il y ait à un moment donné une sorte d'euphorie du pédalage ?"
 
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Look, some people would pay to have a golden shower in their yellow jersey...if it really happened.

Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Of course they can Froome was hanging onto motorbikes in GTs, then on the podium! Release all the information they have about his performances to show how he went from Motorbike hanger to GT winner. EASY.

What is that twisting.

Cycling! you say that like there are only a few bad apples that ruin it for everyone else. Sadly anyone who follows the sport without prejudice knows that is not the case. Attack people for pointing that out really helps the sport. Chapeau mon ami :rolleyes:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Look, some people would pay to have a golden shower in their yellow jersey...if it really happened.

Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.

Can you post the link to the 'evidence'? Cos Walsh is tweeting this and he has no evidence, except it was a Frenchman because only the French come on Saturday 'transitional' stages! He must not be watching the same race as me!
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Of course they can Froome was hanging onto motorbikes in GTs

And for about the 1000th time on here it was because he had an injured knee, but lets not let the truth (or at least the official story) get in the way.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Look, some people would pay to have a golden shower in their yellow jersey...if it really happened.

Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.

There was a "Yellow Rose" comment...I see the reference flew completely over your serious little head...

Past that, I as a lawyer understand that this isn't a court of law, nor am I required to treat every forum in which I speak or write like a court of law, nor am I required to given the same respect and deference to touchy, humorless, uptight people here as I am in court. You want the respect, earn the title "Judge," and show up in court and I'll kiss your a$$ and play humble. Until then, you're just some screen name on a cycling forum, with little to no relevance to my life.

Really, you people should learn the rules of the intertubes before coming here.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Look, some people would pay to have a golden shower in their yellow jersey...if it really happened.

Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.

Can you post the link to the 'evidence'? Cos Walsh is tweeting this and he has no evidence, except it was a Frenchman because only the French come on Saturday 'transitional' stages! He must not be watching the same race as me!

It is being widely reported in the media. I'm cant say for sure if it was p1ss or not, just that it is widely reported that it was suspected as being. If we're going to go down the 'evidence' route will you revisit your 10000+ posts and add the evidence????
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Of course they can Froome was hanging onto motorbikes in GTs

And for about the 1000th time on here it was because he had an injured knee, but lets not let the truth (or at least the official story) get in the way.

He cheats because he wasn't/isn't up to the task of competing...yea, that's what we're saying too.
 
Re: Re:

gooner said:
DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Nail. on. head.

The latest lies about the urine throwing and saying it as if it's the gospel truth.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will change your mind. Absolutely f'uck all.

See how easy that was to describe you?

Nail. on. head.

Good post Chewie!
 
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
TheSpud said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Look, some people would pay to have a golden shower in their yellow jersey...if it really happened.

Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.

There was a "Yellow Rose" comment...I see the reference flew completely over your serious little head...

Past that, I as a lawyer understand that this isn't a court of law, nor am I required to treat every forum in which I speak or write like a court of law, nor am I required to given the same respect and deference to touchy, humorless, uptight people here as I am in court. You want the respect, earn the title "Judge," and show up in court and I'll kiss your a$$ and play humble. Until then, you're just some screen name on a cycling forum, with little to no relevance to my life.

Really, you people should learn the rules of the intertubes before coming here.

I saw the Yellow Rose comment and chuckled - so I didn't miss it.

And to be clear, I'm not saying we should treat this as a court of law, but there are many times that there are posts with 'Oh thats what Lance or USP said / did, therefore Sky must be doping'. I don't think many have come from you, but I was surprised when you posted something that was similar above. As a defense lawyer (and I don't know what law you cover here, so go with me) would you allow the prosecution to get away with "Well young teenager A swore at the policeman before shooting him, therefore it was appropriate to shoot young teenager B when he swore at the policeman?".

Extreme example I know, but the logic is horsesh1t. Thats why I was surprised - no personal beef intended.
 
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
TheSpud said:
It is being widely reported in the media. I'm cant say for sure if it was p1ss or not, just that it is widely reported that it was suspected as being. If we're going to go down the 'evidence' route will you revisit your 10000+ posts and add the evidence????

Satire really is lost on you people.

Where's the satire? Its just multiple posts from people who think that if they reiterate one-liners over and over then they become truths from knowledgeable people. Unfortunately it doesn't add to the debate ...
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
TheSpud said:
ChewbaccaDefense said:
Benotti69 said:
Why do you think it is called the 'Yellow' Rose :D

I remember when Armstrong claimed to have urine thrown on him...I think he tried to blame the media too...the parallels are piling up.

Thats a ridiculous comment.

FACT - Froome had a liquid thrown on him and the word 'Doped' (or 'Doper') shouted at him. Most concerned seemed to think it was urine. Whether it was or wasn't has nothing at all to do with Armstrong.

So many people on here pull out the old 'Thats what Lance said / did' as an argument as proof of Sky doping. And you as a Lawyer (as I understand it) should know that this kind of argument is nonsense.

Can you post the link to the 'evidence'? Cos Walsh is tweeting this and he has no evidence, except it was a Frenchman because only the French come on Saturday 'transitional' stages! He must not be watching the same race as me!

It is being widely reported in the media. I'm cant say for sure if it was p1ss or not, just that it is widely reported that it was suspected as being. If we're going to go down the 'evidence' route will you revisit your 10000+ posts and add the evidence????

As yes the media who for years ignored Armstrong..............
 
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.

Ms. Froome implies that Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, is one of those not sticking to facts. Since you seem so certain about this, I challenge you to provide a point-by-point discussion of Tucker’s analysis, showing exactly where he is knowingly making false statements about Froome.

In contrast, when the-then Ms. Cound posted on the Clinic a couple of years ago, she amply demonstrated that she’s the one who has no understanding of the facts. She tried to refute the claim that Froome’s V02max had never been measured, pointing to Grappe’s study. She didn’t understand that Grappe didn’t measure Froome’s V02max, he estimated it from his power data. That exercise is far more subject to unknown factors than estimating power from climbing times. When this was pointed out to her, she conveniently disappeared without responding.

If Ms. Froome wants to speak out against the urine-throwing incident fine. But blaming it on scientists who are raising legitimate questions smacks of suppressing freedom of speech, particularly when she herself is clearly over her head in these discussions. If you don’t understand science, you have no business accusing those who report this science of defamation.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Nail. on. head.

The latest lies about the urine throwing and saying it as if it's the gospel truth.

Sky lies; Pillows, pineapple juice, ketones, dont know VO2 max of their riders, etc etc
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
gooner said:
DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
If they are doing this clean, then this can easily be solved.

What a joke. And you know it yourself.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will make your mind up. Absolutely f'uck all. Any lurker of this forum knows that you, Benotti, is an expert of twisting and twerking whatever is published around to keep your real interest (and it's not cycling...) glowing and flowing in here.

Nail. on. head.

The latest lies about the urine throwing and saying it as if it's the gospel truth.

There's absolutely nothing they could have, could do, will do that would have/will change your mind. Absolutely f'uck all.

See how easy that was to describe you?

Nail. on. head.

Good post Chewie!

I'm open minded to be informed with any substantial info.

Sadly that doesn't include your style of posting.

It's disingenuous of Benotti to come on here and call for data releases, transparency as if it would somehow make a difference to his position when he has a religious view of thinking everyone dopes.
 

TRENDING THREADS