Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Knutsen]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Welcome back next year. The same crowd will bee here. 1 year older, same posts.

 

[samhocking]

You don't need any evidence here Bernie, just find two dots, join them and start your own conspiracy!

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

 

[jalep]

Re:

I can take of leave Froome. I don't really have a favourite, just enjoy road racing full stop. I've not enjoyed the accusations against Sky though and I do feel for Froome having to soak up this while in Yellow. He's got tough skin though and I admire him for that if nothing else!

Completely understand. I love riding my bike, always have. Then I decided to follow road cycling on TV.
So just pick your favorite, for whatever the reason that attracts you to them - but have no illusions.

Sadly, the enjoyment of pro cycling has slipped away for me. And it's a shame. TdF is supposed to be a beautiful demonstration of courage, physical ability and endurance. It loses it's life and soul when money can buy the winners and can produce a winner by 'creating' him. It's not real anymore. Just a show where the one with the most power and wealth wins.

My jaw dropped when Froome sped up Angliru in 2011, Vuelta a Espana - he was unheard of, a domestique, and as someone on here mentioned, it was more likely that Bauke Mollema would be a TdF winner back then, truly. Cobo also a domestique, but a known doper. The podium was: Cobo 1st step, Froome 2nd, Wiggins 3rd. Cobo and Froome convinced me of doping, actually Lance Armstrong had already made me certain of doping and corruption. It was another a clear snapshot, that podium. And a signal of what was going to happen TdF 2012, even the route was tailor -made for Wiggins. Sky is in the business for this. Something went wrong last year (2014) but they've fixed it. Literally fixed it.

But if they are your team and you can look past the doping, corruption, and collaboration, like I did last year when Astana was winning, well, it can be entertaining and a nice diversion from the real life/world dramas.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

You don't need any evidence here Bernie, just find two dots, join them and start your own conspiracy!

I disagree, there is plenty of evidence that Sky are doping. You just choose not to see it.

 

[bigcog]

Re:

another joke of a stage by Dawg. Closing down attack after attack.

Another joke by Quintana launching attack after attack, see what I did there ?

 

[mrhender]

Everyone..

Quit the baiting and constant comments about other posters..

The topic at hand is Froome..

Posters on here are NOT the topic....

Cheers mrhender

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

So a smooth career progression to the top is required in the clinic. I struggle to find a rider with a smooth career progression who won the Tour de France and never got busted, so what is the point of this argument?

Not so much a smooth progression as clear signs of early talent. You can't be the greatest athlete in the last 25 years and not show any of that promise in your youth.

Exactly. I was arguing about this on twitter the other day. I said "his palmares before Vuelta 2011 was very average at best" but apparently coming 2nd in Giro del Capo at age 23 is a clear sign of massive talent.

He was riding with Barloworld in a race where they were the only team who had attended the Tour de France that year. The only professional team.

They had 4 riders in the top 10.

All the other teams are amateur - ie CONT.

You would be disgusted if they did not win the race.

Without reading stage by stage race reports, we have no way of knowing why Froome came second.

 

[Saint Unix]

What about the picture of Cookson in Sky gear while on his training ride or the fact that Cookson's son works for Sky?

It's not enough evidence to say Cookson the UCI President favours Sky, but there's no doubt who Cookson the person favours. As long as he stays professional on the job rather than mixing personal feelings into it it's not a problem, but it's totally valid to ask questions, especially with the previous history of his position.

 

[zalacain]

Re: Re:

[quote

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. ---edited by mod---[/quote]
Has anybody seen or heard anything from the UCI? Has Cookson been near the Tour?

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.

What issuing an express TUE, without following the rules is kosher?

Yeah that Contador cover up went well didn't it. As regards Kreuziger, Big Brian Cookson was all for banning him then got cold feet and dropped the case. But you're right Rogers got off and he shouldn't have, just ask the Chinese guy who used to ride for Discovery.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

What about the picture of Cookson in Sky gear while on his training ride or the fact that Cookson's son works for Sky?

It's not enough evidence to say Cookson the UCI President favours Sky, but there's no doubt who Cookson the person favours. As long as he stays professional on the job rather than mixing personal feelings into it it's not a problem, but it's totally valid to ask questions, especially with the previous history of his position.

I'm not saying it's not right to be suspicious. It wouldn't surprise me at all but many here state it as if it is a fact. The UCI have also been incredibly soft on Katusha and Astana, they are undoubtedly a corrupt organisation but that's different from them giving preferential treatment to one team.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

What about the picture of Cookson in Sky gear while on his training ride or the fact that Cookson's son works for Sky?

It's not enough evidence to say Cookson the UCI President favours Sky, but there's no doubt who Cookson the person favours. As long as he stays professional on the job rather than mixing personal feelings into it it's not a problem, but it's totally valid to ask questions, especially with the previous history of his position.

I'm not saying it's not right to be suspicious. It wouldn't surprise me at all but many here state it as if it is a fact. The UCI have also been incredibly soft on Katusha and Astana, they are undoubtedly a corrupt organisation but that's different from them giving preferential treatment to one team.

No my view on the UCI and the UCI/Sky is my opinion. I'm not that deluded(yet ) to believe that my opinion is fact on a subject.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.

No, no, no that packet of Prednisolone on Froomes 2014 Romandie TUE is definitely still knocking around on the bus giving some good marginal gains even this year.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

[quote="samhocking

No, no, no that packet of Prednisolone on Froomes 2014 Romandie TUE is definitely still knocking around on the bus giving some good marginal gains even this year.[/quote]

So you admit that the Prednisolone did give Froome some gains for Romandie?

 

[el_angliru]

Re: Re:

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.

It could also be the other way around. Kreuziger was 5th GC at the 2013 Tour de France - one minute behind Contador (4th GC). So he was a very valuable domestique for Alberto. But UCI managed to keep Kreuziger out of the 2014 Tour and 2014 Vuelta - and thus rubbing Alberto of his most valuable dom! Still, UCI never managed to ban Kreuziger.

Imagine if UCI in a similarly way had kept Froome out of the 2012 tour, or Porte from 2013 tour, or G Thomas from the 2015 tour?

 

[samhocking]

Who knows, but I doubt there's many tablets left by now, so Sky's domination, must be coming to an end soon.
Maybe that's why Froome went so hard in the pyrenees because Thomas has munched his way through them all trying to keep up with Valverde and he knows he's going to be short for the Alps to fend off Quintana?

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

Who knows, but I doubt there's many tablets left by now, so Sky's domination, must be coming to an end soon.
Maybe that's why Froome went so hard in pyrenees because as Thomas has munched his way through them trying to keep up with Valverde and he knows he's going to be short for the Alps to fend off Quintana?

Lets hope so. Time for Lotto to have some "domination time".

Regarding Froome/Romandie 2014. Were the other guys there just in poor form? Seems to happen a lot to guys when Froome is in the same race.

I mean if you need an emergency TUE should you really be winning bike races? If so I might stop being sXe and start munching down any old powder and pills.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

I've developed a distinct eye twitch reading samhocking's posts lately.

I mean... what?!?

Don't worry, BYOP88 got the answer I was looking for and that Sky are winning because the UCI is corrupt and protecting them doping more than other teams. I've finished here now - back to work tomorrow anyway, so no more lazy afternoons! Enjoy Le Tour!

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.

Correct. On the question of doping, positives are practically random. I don't think anyone argues that.

The CIRC report clearly stated the UCI assisted Armstrong/USA Cycling to grow cycling in a new market. Who was enriched?
-Armstrong's business ventures and Armstrong's business cohorts like Thom Wiesel.
-ASO got something out of it. Extended broadcast revenues, some new viewers.
-Individuals inside the UCI likely enriched. Verbruggen stock trading account at Wiesel's firm run by Och.

Fast forward to 2010 and beyond who has been enriched if the UCI gave preferential treatment to Sky.
-The UCI itself with a British TdF winner at the Olympics. The UCI is paid out of Summer games revenue by some unknown formula using viewership and "social media" activity. A Brit winning the TdF boosted viewers.
-ASO has gotten plenty out of it. They were paid for one year of a TdF start in the UK, A brand new stage race in Yorkshire for several years, another TdF stage in discussion, an ASO-run sportiv.

It's not a crackpot scheme any more. They already did it once with Armstrong/USA Cycling.

Froome appears to be the current lucky responder with Thomas ready to take over as Froome took over for Wiggins.

Demands for proof are just not possible until the next CIRC report about BC/Sky 15 years from now. It's a loose collection of facts until the statue of limitations kicks in.

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

Nobody on here has produced any evidence to suggest that the UCI are protecting Sky. Most on here have a deep hatred for Sky and refuse to even accept the possibility that Sky might just be better at cheating than their favourite doping teams.

Express TUE, Romandie 2014.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-uci-fast-tracked-froome-tue-request-at-tour-de-romandie[/quote]

That's not an example of favouritism over other team's though. I could just as easily say they are protecting Contador by trying to cover up his failed drugs test and choosing not to ban two of his chief domestiques from the sport.[/quote]

Correct. On the question of doping, positives are practically random. I don't think anyone argues that.

The CIRC report clearly stated the UCI assisted Armstrong/USA Cycling to grow cycling in a new market. Who was enriched?
-Armstrong's business ventures and Armstrong's business cohorts like Thom Wiesel.
-ASO got something out of it. Extended broadcast revenues, some new viewers.
-Individuals inside the UCI likely enriched. Verbruggen stock trading account at Wiesel's firm run by Och.

Fast forward to 2010 and beyond who has been enriched if the UCI gave preferential treatment to Sky.
-The UCI itself with a British TdF winner at the Olympics. The UCI is paid out of Summer games revenue by some unknown formula using viewership and "social media" activity. A Brit winning the TdF boosted viewers.
-ASO has gotten plenty out of it. They were paid for one year of a TdF start in the UK, A brand new stage race in Yorkshire for several years, another TdF stage in discussion, an ASO-run sportiv.

It's not a crackpot scheme any more. They already did it once with Armstrong/USA Cycling.

Froome appears to be the current lucky responder with Thomas ready to take over as Froome took over for Wiggins.

Demands for proof are just not possible until the next CIRC report about BC/Sky 15 years from now. It's a loose collection of facts until the statue of limitations kicks in.[/quote]

Either G or that mythical New Clean French Winner sir Brailsfraud dreamed to coach a while ago.

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

I'm talking about comparing riders palamares is flaky, not their results!

I'm sure if you presented any DS/team manager 5 years ago with the option of Mollema or Froome for the final spot on a teams 30 man roster, 99.9999999% of them would've selected Mollema.

I'm not trying to give the odds of who becomes a Tour winner though, i'm saying if you think all the top riders are doping how can you use doping as the excuse for Froome's performance and justify it simply by comparing riders palamares, especially when that riders hasn't come through the typical European racing set-up.

People use doping as the explanation for Froome's performances because after years of ordinary results cycling as a road professional, his performances jumped overnight by at least 2 or 3 levels in September 2011 and have remained at that much higher level ever since, right up there with the 'best' doped performances ever. This happened after Dr. Leinders was hired in December 2010 (9 months beforehand) and just before Froome was about to be released by Sky. Before 2011 Froome was clean and didn't have the palmares of dopers like Contador and Valverde. Since 2011 he has the palmares of dopers like Contador and Valverde in fact he is a level above them and has been for most if not all of that time.

That is how you can use doping to explain Froome' performances and justify it by comparing palmares. Before and After. You are highlighting the massive overnight jump in performance in doing so. The only other person I have ever seen transform to such a degree in any sport is Michelle Smith. He had plenty of races to show us this huge physiology and talent, so the 'coming through the African system' argument doesn't explain the lack of palmares pre September 2011. All people want is some explanation for this but once again Sky have gotten away with not giving us any pre-2011 data (and not their own man Kerrison's interpretation of that data, which they were never asked for by the way) which is an absolute must see for most sceptics as I'm sure most people in here will agree. And people will doubt him for as long as he fails to produce this. And cycling fans have every right to suspect in the circumstances and shouldn't really be criticised for it imo. The ball has been in his court for 4 years now but they don't seem to want the suspicion to stop at all.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Demands for proof are just not possible until the next CIRC report about BC/Sky 15 years from now. It's a loose collection of facts until the statue of limitations kicks in.

Make that 35 years. It took that length of time for Drew McMaster to grass up Alan Wells and with no consequences for anyone involved. The story attracted 3 comments on the Daily Mail blog. Wikipedia solemnly records the fact that Drew admitted to taking PEDs in 1995 which is 15 years after Moscow so you might be in with a shout ...

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

My beef is you can't have the general consensus that all the top riders are all doping, yet also use the reason Froome is beating them to be doping too and when asked for evidence say it's his lack of palamares. Palamares means nothing if you think all the top riders are doping anyway.

It cannot be proof of cleanness if you have it,
But it is very damning if you don't have it.

That's where Froome falls from all the GT contenders.

 

[BYOP88]

Re: Re:

My beef is you can't have the general consensus that all the top riders are all doping, yet also use the reason Froome is beating them to be doping too and when asked for evidence say it's his lack of palamares. Palamares means nothing if you think all the top riders are doping anyway.

It cannot be proof of cleanness if you have it,
But it is very damning if you don't have it.

That's where Froome falls from all the GT contenders.

Dude, Froome won the Automated Jockstrap Race. If that isn't a sign of greatness I don't know what is.