Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 700 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
rhubroma said:
Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?
Obviously, yes.

Same with Landis, or Jaksche, vs the likes of Jalabert, or Hincapie, or Zabel.
It doens't matter whether it is Jalabert or Rasmussen saying it, when they are saying the same thing. ;)
 
Jul 20, 2015
393
0
0
Re:

Miburo said:
Kennaugh bullying rasmussen and now this vid piece on jalabert. They want to deviate from the topic with this strategy.

Is this 7 w/kg legit? That's insane :D
How did they work out he did 7 w/kg I thought it was closer to 6.3?

Gesink came 5th I think on that stage including a big attack, is heavier than Froome and only did 5.8
 
Mar 27, 2015
252
0
0
Merckx index said:
When a commenter called him on this, he said that it took Froome two years to become a GC contender. I really don’t know where he’s getting that from. It took him about two weeks.
Sounds so easy. Wonder why anyone else don't transform himself to a GC contender in a couple of weeks.
 

TMJ

Jul 18, 2015
28
0
0
King Boonen said:
TMJ said:
Libertine Seguros said:
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.

Wow. I was not expecting such a detailed and well-informed reply.

I think my original point must have been inspired by ITV's repeat of their Chris Froome profile post-Le Tour 2013, which included attempts to explain his rise by Sir David B, journalist David Walsh and some Namibian rider called Craven.

His Commonwealth Games time-trial, in which the programme said he sat in the leader's seat for an hour, was portrayed as remarkable feat given his equipment, support etc. Anyone disagree with this?
In 2010 he rode the time-trial for England. I'm guessing he was pretty well supported. How long he sat on the seat is really dependent on when he started too.

Edit: Apparently he rode in 2006 too, which one are we talking about?

The ITV programme was referring to his 2006 ride.

I have since looked up the result and Froome eventually finished 17th at over 5 minutes down.

The Aussie gold medalist went on to be banned for performance-enhancing drugs a year later.
 
Aug 24, 2009
222
0
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.
More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
Not necessarily.

It's obvious and accepted in most other sports such tennis, rugby, football and basketball, etc, that the majority of athletes nowadays are so much more athletic than those even 10 years ago, due to advancement in strength & conditioning, training methods and nutrition.

So what is possible now, would of only been a dream back in the 90's
Feels like there is something missing there..

Unless by nutrition you mean you know what
 
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.


We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?

Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.

Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
I don't see how Jalabert saying what others have been saying, should be taken any less into consideration, simply because he refuses to come clear about his own past. Now I agree with you that this is "pussying out," however, it makes no sense on that account to dismiss what he says as "outright lying."

Why? His lying about himself in reality has no bearing on the veracity or lack there of regarding another. It's hypocritical sure, but so is Sky talking about taking all the necessary measures to "ensure" their rider is clean, but not knowing his weight! to be able to refute a very problematical issue over how Froome went so fast on that climb.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
this. like Ricco, much more credulous than offering the anti-doping soundbites and platitudes of regret and remorse. and the public continue the pantomime by demanding the apologies and fault martyrdom. puhleeeze
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

LaFlorecita said:
I think Sky fans are focusing too much on what Jalabert is, was and has done, instead of on what he said about Froome.
In forum language: Ball, not man.
Every single defense of argument from people outside Sky follows the same pattern: attack the person not the argument.

pseudo scientists
irresponsible journalists
bitter ex-dopers
bone-idle lazy wankers

Very UK Postal-like.
 
Jul 17, 2015
466
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.


We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?

Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.

Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
I don't see how Jalabert saying what others have been saying, should be taken any less into consideration, simply because he refuses to come clear about his own past. Now I agree with you that this is "pussying out," however, it makes no sense on that account to dismiss what he says as "outright lying."

Why? His lying about himself in reality has no bearing on the veracity or lack there of regarding another. It's hypocritical sure, but so is Sky talking about taking all the necessary measures to "ensure" their rider is clean, but not knowing his weight! to be able to refute a very problematical issue over how Froome went so fast on that climb.
You have misread what I said. I didn't say that what he said about Sky is 'outright lying' (and I agree that what he said may be true), I said that what he said about what he said is outright lying, and that is indisputable. Sorry if that is a bit convoluted!

I notice that you haven't addressed my point about accepting the views of ex-dopers who accuse or insinuate against Froome whilst dismissing the views of ex-dopers who support Froome. You yourself have said that Jalabert should be listened to because he is an ex-doper and therefore knows, so if being an ex-doper is the criteria for believing then why cherry pick??? It is called confirmation bias.

As it happens, I have expressed my views about Froome too, and my view is that on the balance of probabilities I think he and his team are cheating, but just because Jalabert is saying the same, doesn't mean I respect what he has to say and why he is saying it. After all, this is the guy who had his lawyer say that Jalabert "regrets that through the excesses of a past period, the image of contemporary cycling and that of the Tour de France have again been besmirched when he has always worked to promote them.”

So he promoted the image of cycling and the TdF by cheating. Hmmm.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
wendybnt said:
Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
this. like Ricco, much more credulous than offering the anti-doping soundbites and platitudes of regret and remorse. and the public continue the pantomime by demanding the apologies and fault martyrdom. puhleeeze
Ricco's arrogance is the same strenght that allows him to state things so baldly, that and the fact that it also caused him to be made into the black sheep of cylcing at the moment of his greatest triumph.

I still don't see why the sincere, non-repentent doper on this account alone, needs to be taken any more seriously than one who for opportunistic reasons makes the same claims.

While the one may be viewed as more respectable, the other as lacking compunction, the position remains the same.
 
Jul 17, 2015
466
0
0
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
wendybnt said:
Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
this. like Ricco, much more credulous than offering the anti-doping soundbites and platitudes of regret and remorse. and the public continue the pantomime by demanding the apologies and fault martyrdom. puhleeeze

At last. Somebody with a clear head gets it.
 
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.


We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?

Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.

Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.
I don't see how Jalabert saying what others have been saying, should be taken any less into consideration, simply because he refuses to come clear about his own past. Now I agree with you that this is "pussying out," however, it makes no sense on that account to dismiss what he says as "outright lying."

Why? His lying about himself in reality has no bearing on the veracity or lack there of regarding another. It's hypocritical sure, but so is Sky talking about taking all the necessary measures to "ensure" their rider is clean, but not knowing his weight! to be able to refute a very problematical issue over how Froome went so fast on that climb.
You have misread what I said. I didn't say that what he said about Sky is 'outright lying' (and I agree that what he said may be true), I said that what he said about what he said is outright lying, and that is indisputable. Sorry if that is a bit convoluted!

I notice that you haven't addressed my point about accepting the views of ex-dopers who accuse or insinuate against Froome whilst dismissing the views of ex-dopers who support Froome. You yourself have said that Jalabert should be listened to because he is an ex-doper and therefore knows, so if being an ex-doper is the criteria for believing then why cherry pick??? It is called confirmation bias.

As it happens, I have expressed my views about Froome too, and my view is that on the balance of probabilities I think he and his team are cheating, but just because Jalabert is saying the same, doesn't mean I respect what he has to say and why he is saying it. After all, this is the guy who had his lawyer say that Jalabert "regrets that through the excesses of a past period, the image of contemporary cycling and that of the Tour de France have again been besmirched when he has always worked to promote them.”

So he promoted the image of cycling and the TdF by cheating. Hmmm.
To the bolded, the only ex-dopers I have read who have come out in support of Froome seem to me to be motivated by an even worse form of opportunism than that which drives Jalabert. Since their only hope in still gaining some economic advantage lies in the narrative of a "changed" sport. It is even more spineless because they know what they say is utter BS, in an attempt to favorably condition public oppinion for their own standing.
 
That thing about people wanting ex-doper platitudes and apologies is hogwash as far as the Clinic is concerned. Jaksche or Landis never apologized for doping, and Landis made it abundantly clear that his reaction after being caught was the only part he regretted. Nobody here asks for or wants faux apologies.

Sure, it applies to the general public, but much of that thinks the peloton is quite clean anyway.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Ricco's arrogance is the same strenght that allows him to state things so baldly, that and the fact that it also caused him to made into the black sheep of cylcing at the moment of his greatest triumph.

I still don't see why the sincere, non-repentent doper on this account alone, needs to be taken any more seriously than one who for opportunistic reasons makes the same claims.

While the one may be viewed as more respectable, the other as lacking compunction, the position remains the same.
well, as long as Jaja and alumni slipstream still have skin in the game, their position with be triangulated for expedience like game theory. If Prudhomme does not want Jaja commentating on France deux, he could make that happen. Ricco does not have to be so concerned, as long as he can maintain a notoriety he can get up his Ricco Gran Fondo
 
Jul 17, 2015
466
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
To the bolded, the only ex-dopers I have read who have come out in support of Froome seem to me to be motivated by an even worse form of opportunism than that which drives Jalabert. Since their only hope in still gaining some economic advantage lies in the narrative of a "changed" sport. It is even more spineless because they know what they say is utter BS, in an attempt to favorably condition public oppinion for their own standing.
Exactly! Any you dismiss their views on the basis of the motivation for them, which means that if you judge (as I do) Jalabert to have the same motivations then you have to dismiss his views too. It is called fairness and objectivity rather than confirmation bias.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more interested in rasmussen and what he has to say.
Exactly...

rhubroma said:
We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
And why is it so? Because people like Jalabert are still in, around, or at pro cycling. And then these guys throw mud... Or Lemond now: Asking Ullrich to give back his yellow jersey coz he came clean. Why didnt he ask Indurain, instead of waving hands with him in a car in Paris, just two years ago? Because he kept his mouth shut?
What a big hypocrisy all this is.
LA came clean, as Rasmussen did, and it helped them zilch. Super anti doping fight. :rolleyes:
The next rider will think twice if talking to CIRCs and else, because it doesnt do them any favours. So actually it is back-firing...
The fish stinks from different directions (scientists & docs taking over cycling in the mid 80s, Big Pharma, officials, rule makers, "anti" doping" agencys, past dopers in high positions, etc.). The current riders are just the last chain, but getting it smeared them over 100%.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Re:

hrotha said:
That thing about people wanting ex-doper platitudes and apologies is hogwash as far as the Clinic is concerned. Jaksche or Landis never apologized for doping, and Landis made it abundantly clear that his reaction after being caught was the only part he regretted. Nobody here asks for or wants faux apologies.

Sure, it applies to the general public, but much of that thinks the peloton is quite clean anyway.
This. It boggles the mind that the general public wants repentance and actually believes caught dopers like Millar when they profess to have reconsidered the ethics of what they were doing in the exact moment they got caught. Amazing how that always coincides with their self interest.
 
Re: Re:

blackcat said:
rhubroma said:
Ricco's arrogance is the same strenght that allows him to state things so baldly, that and the fact that it also caused him to made into the black sheep of cylcing at the moment of his greatest triumph.

I still don't see why the sincere, non-repentent doper on this account alone, needs to be taken any more seriously than one who for opportunistic reasons makes the same claims.

While the one may be viewed as more respectable, the other as lacking compunction, the position remains the same.
well, as long as Jaja and alumni slipstream still have skin in the game, their position with be triangulated for expedience like game theory. If Prudhomme does not want Jaja commentating on France deux, he could make that happen. Ricco does not have to be so concerned, as long as he can maintain a notoriety he can get up his Ricco Gran Fondo
That Jaja still has skin in the game should make him less brazen than Ricco, who, as far as I can tell, hasn't said anything. The real difference thus is that people are still listening to Jaja, he still has "a voice," but not Ricco and since the former is still comfortably ensconsed within the French cycling community, this has made his statements hypocritical and off-putting as a result. All I'm saying is that (if we are talking about "discernment," even though I'm evidently a blockhead) just because Jalabert is a hypocrite doesn't mean that his comments should be taken as lacking credibility.
 
Oct 4, 2014
606
0
0
Re: Re:

gazr99 said:
rhubroma said:
wendybnt said:
What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.
More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.
Not necessarily.

It's obvious and accepted in most other sports such tennis, rugby, football and basketball, etc, that the majority of athletes nowadays are so much more athletic than those even 10 years ago, due to advancement in strength & conditioning, training methods and nutrition.

So what is possible now, would of only been a dream back in the 90's
:D :D :D :D :D
 
Re: Re:

wendybnt said:
rhubroma said:
To the bolded, the only ex-dopers I have read who have come out in support of Froome seem to me to be motivated by an even worse form of opportunism than that which drives Jalabert. Since their only hope in still gaining some economic advantage lies in the narrative of a "changed" sport. It is even more spineless because they know what they say is utter BS, in an attempt to favorably condition public oppinion for their own standing.
Exactly! Any you dismiss their views on the basis of the motivation for them, which means that if you judge (as I do) Jalabert to have the same motivations then you have to dismiss his views too. It is called fairness and objectivity rather than confirmation bias.
I would dismiss Jalabert's statements if they were hogwash (to use Hothra's term). Psychological behavior should remind you how much "fairness" and "objectivity" is greatly compromised and the interprative problems this has caused. Here truth and disimulation go hand in hand, and there are times when one's lies reveal the very truth in what is said in other cases.That he is a hypocrite, in other words, leads me to conclude that I can take nothing he says about himself seriously, but this doesn't automatically render what he says about others hogwash. To me this stikes at the very issue of discernment, you yourself have implicitely accused others of lacking. ;)
 
Apr 7, 2015
395
0
0
What does the Dalai Lama say? Anybody seen him on Twitter? What about Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? These are the people the british media would listen to. They fit the narrative. Only people crowned as saints have the right to be right. Only angels need apply.
 
Jul 17, 2015
466
0
0
Unfortunately, cycling is still in a swirling vortex of denial and hypocrisy at every angle. Just because I think the British have been cheating doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that there isn't a huge chunk of hypocrisy from some of the accusers, be they people in the sport or amateur commentators on the internet. I think the relative silence over Jalabert's position as National French coach is just one example.

Sure, bring Team Sky down, why not...they are almost certainly cheating. But without an honest and unhypocritical appraisal of what is going on there would just be another Team Sky with a different national flag waiting in the wings. Let's face it, we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about waiting to take Sky's spot.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY