• 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 692 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 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.

Sky lies; Pillows, pineapple juice, ketones, dont know VO2 max of their riders, etc etc

It's grand pointing out inconsistencies on their part but that doesn't mean they lie about everything. You didn't even reserve judgement on this.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Merckx index 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.

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.

Great post.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
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.
Agreed, a urine test is definitely needed.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Benotti69 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.

Sky lies; Pillows, pineapple juice, ketones, dont know VO2 max of their riders, etc etc

It's grand pointing out inconsistencies on their part but that doesn't mean they lie about everything. You didn't even reserve judgement on this.

to quote Brailsofrd "you dont lie on Monday and not Tuesday........"

Inconsistencies is a PR word. Lies are lies. Call a spade a spade. Doping is not new to the sport, it is deeply engrained, we dont need to tiptoe around it.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
to quote Brailsofrd "you dont lie on Monday and not Tuesday........"

Inconsistencies is a PR word. Lies are lies. Call a spade a spade. Doping is not new to the sport, it is deeply engrained, we dont need to tiptoe around it.

I know doping isn't new to cycling. Pointless even saying that on your part.

Lies, falsehoods, whatever, the point still stands. You made your mind up without reserving judgement.
 
If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Someone on here was claiming Teklehaimanot destroyed Froome in an African championship race. Well, why didn't SKY sign him then?

The point I am making is that SKY would not sign any old hack entitled to a British passport with the expectation their methods would turn them into a champion.

Froome MUST have had something about him to catch their interest and invest so much time, effort and money into project Chris.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
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.

The sport has long forgone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The sport has not had some monumental change of heart, never mind culture that would indicate that there has been a change. All that happened was the guy who everyone knew doped finally admitted it. That was used to claim that the sport somehow changed. False.

Do you believe Sky? They have talked a lot like previous dopers, yet shown nothing. When asked how they did it they got a Murdoch journalist to talk about things Sky claimed to have invented, better training, better diet, washing hands, special pillows, nutella bans, a squirt of pineapple juice in the bidons, which all were disproved as being invented by sky nor were they revolutionary.

So Froome and Sky want to be believed but instead of being transparent, have told a bunch of lies and you attack posters like me for calling it.
 
TMJ said:
If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Someone on here was claiming Teklehaimanot destroyed Froome in an African championship race. Well, why didn't SKY sign him then?

The point I am making is that SKY would not sign any old hack entitled to a British passport with the expectation their methods would turn them into champion.

Froome MUST have had something about him to catch their interest and invest so much time, effort and money into project Chris.

Boy, thats a big first post. I agree with your argument, just be prepared to take cover ...
 
Re:

ChewbaccaDefense said:
There are spectators saying it was Heineken that was thrown

‏@ChrisPicavet
Chris Froome maakt een veel voorkomende en begrijpelijke vergissing. Volgens toeschouwers was het geen urine maar Heineken bier.

Easy mistake then.

Nah - cant be Heineken, thats a decent beer and doesnt taste like p1ss. Anyway, they're in France and there are plenty of other candidates for that ... :D
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
to quote Brailsofrd "you dont lie on Monday and not Tuesday........"

Inconsistencies is a PR word. Lies are lies. Call a spade a spade. Doping is not new to the sport, it is deeply engrained, we dont need to tiptoe around it.

I know doping isn't new to cycling. Pointless even saying that on your part.

Lies, falsehoods, whatever, the point still stands. You made your mind up without reserving judgement.

Why did i make up my mind?

It turns out that Dutch fans not French who were according to Walsh the only fans on the road side today, are tweeting it was Heineken.......so see Walsh and Sky with the lies......
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
TMJ said:
If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Why was Brailsford trying to get rid of Froome to Bruyneel, when Bruyneel asked about Steve Cummings?
 
Not a Froome fan, but irrespective of what anyone thinks of him doping (or to some, not doping) is beside the point. Throwing urine at someone you've never met, don't really have personal problems with (apart from obvious doping), etc is disgusting, disrespectful to ALL the riders in the race and is ridiculous. No need for that. I'd rather confront him and ask him why we can't have clean GT riders and try to do it in a civil manner. Obvious doping is obvious, but still. Just my stupid opinion.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re:

DominicDecoco said:
Also, if it was, in fact, Heineken, then it's just perfectly fine, isn't it..

Slightly different then Urine only slightly and i bet Adam hansen, Andy Schleck and Stuey O'Grady would have been very happy.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
BullsFan22 said:
Not a Froome fan, but irrespective of what anyone thinks of him doping (or to some, not doping) is beside the point. Throwing urine at someone you've never met, don't really have personal problems with (apart from obvious doping), etc is disgusting, disrespectful to ALL the riders in the race and is ridiculous. No need for that. I'd rather confront him and ask him why we can't have clean GT riders and try to do it in a civil manner. Obvious doping is obvious, but still. Just my stupid opinion.

No one in here advocating throwing anything at riders, some are asking for more than Froome's and Sky's word on it.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
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.

The sport has long forgone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The sport has not had some monumental change of heart, never mind culture that would indicate that there has been a change. All that happened was the guy who everyone knew doped finally admitted it. That was used to claim that the sport somehow changed. False.

Do you believe Sky? They have talked a lot like previous dopers, yet shown nothing. When asked how they did it they got a Murdoch journalist to talk about things Sky claimed to have invented, better training, better diet, washing hands, special pillows, nutella bans, a squirt of pineapple juice in the bidons, which all were disproved as being invented by sky nor were they revolutionary.

So Froome and Sky want to be believed but instead of being transparent, have told a bunch of lies and you attack posters like me for calling it.

But those bits ARE the marginal gains - remove as much 'noise' as possible from the day to day things, even if they only give 1% improvement it still adds up in total (and in their view important). The big gains are the training, diet, ketones, etc (in your view / world - doping) but you're NEVER going to hear about what they are (legal or not) since they are 'trade secrets'.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
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.

The sport has long forgone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The sport has not had some monumental change of heart, never mind culture that would indicate that there has been a change. All that happened was the guy who everyone knew doped finally admitted it. That was used to claim that the sport somehow changed. False.

Do you believe Sky? They have talked a lot like previous dopers, yet shown nothing. When asked how they did it they got a Murdoch journalist to talk about things Sky claimed to have invented, better training, better diet, washing hands, special pillows, nutella bans, a squirt of pineapple juice in the bidons, which all were disproved as being invented by sky nor were they revolutionary.

So Froome and Sky want to be believed but instead of being transparent, have told a bunch of lies and you attack posters like me for calling it.

I'm not attacking you. I disagree wholeheartedly with your one sided view that everyone dopes. Taking that account, your proposals for riders and teams wouldn't make the slightest change to your thinking no matter what disclosure comes from it.

As for all that better training, pillows etc, that's just a load of guff and nonsense they spout.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
DominicDecoco said:
Also, if it was, in fact, Heineken, then it's just perfectly fine, isn't it..

Slightly different then Urine on slightly and i bet Adam hansen, Andy Schleck and Stuey O'Grady would have been very happy.

I know, It's not quite as dramatic as this..

Sebastian LangeveldVerified account
‏@sebaslangeveld
Today I saw a spectator spit on @richie_porte very disrespectful those guys don't deserve this at all! Please stop, or stay at home

Or is this another one of those 'crying for sympathy' as Chewbacca calls it?..
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
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.

The sport has long forgone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The sport has not had some monumental change of heart, never mind culture that would indicate that there has been a change. All that happened was the guy who everyone knew doped finally admitted it. That was used to claim that the sport somehow changed. False.

Do you believe Sky? They have talked a lot like previous dopers, yet shown nothing. When asked how they did it they got a Murdoch journalist to talk about things Sky claimed to have invented, better training, better diet, washing hands, special pillows, nutella bans, a squirt of pineapple juice in the bidons, which all were disproved as being invented by sky nor were they revolutionary.

So Froome and Sky want to be believed but instead of being transparent, have told a bunch of lies and you attack posters like me for calling it.

But those bits ARE the marginal gains - remove as much 'noise' as possible from the day to day things, even if they only give 1% improvement it still adds up in total (and in their view important). The big gains are the training, diet, ketones, etc (in your view / world - doping) but you're NEVER going to hear about what they are (legal or not) since they are 'trade secrets'.

You're talking like Sky is some kind of Real Madrid and all other teams are 2nd division teams. The training can't be much different and some diet and good night sleep doesn't give you such a humongous advantage over the others.
 
TMJ said:
If Froome was so absolutely terrible pre-2011 then why did SKY sign him?

They must have seen some natural ability there, I mean Sir David B is no dummy is he?

Someone on here was claiming Teklehaimanot destroyed Froome in an African championship race. Well, why didn't SKY sign him then?

The point I am making is that SKY would not sign any old hack entitled to a British passport with the expectation their methods would turn them into champion.

Froome MUST have had something about him to catch their interest and invest so much time, effort and money into project Chris.
There is some natural ability there. It's just that very, very few of us are convinced that the capabilities shown in 2008 and 2009 with Barloworld are consistent with the capabilities shown after he seemingly entered the Konami code and enabled God mode in late August 2011.

As I have said, now dozens of times on this forum, I believe that Chris Froome had bilharzia and that it is, in whole or in part, responsible for his stagnation and regression from mid-2009 to mid-2011. I also do not believe that the talent that he showed (which suggested to me he could be a usable mountain domestique along the lines of maybe Egoi Martínez; Chris Anker Sørensen is the name I've typically used as an upper ceiling on what I thought he could be) explains the talent that he has shown since his transformation, and that owing to the lack of results preceding it his ascent to the pinnacle of the sport is far more ridiculous than Mosquera (who had top 10ed the 2-week Volta a Portugal and most of the Spanish week-long stage races before hitting 5th in a very conservatively-raced Vuelta) or Kohl (who had podiumed the Dauphiné and the Österreichrundfahrt). He belonged in the file with Santiago Pérez. The passport helped him get a Sky contract over similar moderately talented young climbers, but we cannot forget that coming into the 2011 Vuelta - a race he only started because a teammate got sick - he did not have a contract for 2012, and though Garmin and Lampre have said they were looking at him, he'd have been looking at WT minimum wage domestique salaries there. Given that, at that point, Sky's schtick about a British Tour winner in 5 years seemed uncertain as Wiggins was still a one-hit wonder who'd failed miserably in one attempt and crashed out of another attempt to duplicate his Tour success (this was before the Vuelta podium remember), you would think that if they had a British rider on the books who had the potential to match Lance Armstrong's best times and to do it clean, they wouldn't be on the verge of letting him go to a comparatively low budget team like Lampre for peanuts.

He wasn't even the most talented African climber on Barloworld in 2008. John-Lee Augustyn was.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

DominicDecoco said:
Benotti69 said:
DominicDecoco said:
Also, if it was, in fact, Heineken, then it's just perfectly fine, isn't it..

Slightly different then Urine on slightly and i bet Adam hansen, Andy Schleck and Stuey O'Grady would have been very happy.

I know, It's not quite as dramatic as this..

Sebastian LangeveldVerified account
‏@sebaslangeveld
Today I saw a spectator spit on @richie_porte very disrespectful those guys don't deserve this at all! Please stop, or stay at home

Or this another one of those 'crying for sympathy' as Chewbacca calls it?..

Got a link to where i advocate this type of behaviour?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
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.

The sport has long forgone the right to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The sport has not had some monumental change of heart, never mind culture that would indicate that there has been a change. All that happened was the guy who everyone knew doped finally admitted it. That was used to claim that the sport somehow changed. False.

Do you believe Sky? They have talked a lot like previous dopers, yet shown nothing. When asked how they did it they got a Murdoch journalist to talk about things Sky claimed to have invented, better training, better diet, washing hands, special pillows, nutella bans, a squirt of pineapple juice in the bidons, which all were disproved as being invented by sky nor were they revolutionary.

So Froome and Sky want to be believed but instead of being transparent, have told a bunch of lies and you attack posters like me for calling it.

But those bits ARE the marginal gains - remove as much 'noise' as possible from the day to day things, even if they only give 1% improvement it still adds up in total (and in their view important). The big gains are the training, diet, ketones, etc (in your view / world - doping) but you're NEVER going to hear about what they are (legal or not) since they are 'trade secrets'.

They are not 'marginal gains' as all the teams do them or similar, so no gain.

Sky dont do Ketones, if you believe Brailsford. Sean Kelly talked about his attention to detail of his diet with Di Gribaldy. So did Armstrong, Merckx, etc etc......There are no trade secrets when the riders rarely stay at a team for long. So dont believe the hype (or as calling a spade a spade, lies)
 

TRENDING THREADS