Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Taxus4a]

For me Froome is not the most suspicous rider to dope, by the contrary, one of the less.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Have you been smoking, BC?

Armstrong's sophisticated doping programme was caught without a positive test I happen to think that Froome's day will come too, sooner or later. I think that, but I don't know it. I think it won't be via a positive test either. Retrospective testing years later or a leak maybe. A drunken/stoned angry maltweet from Bradley, who knows. I don't know this, but I think it.

so your concerns are epistemological (is that a neologism of mine or legit word?). can we have the philosophers enter to give be some academy appeal to authority? cos we do have a few philosophers, they post in the politics thread in the general sub-forum.

I think Contador and Valverde can create enough doubt and muddy the waters, and recruit Arnie Baker and Dave Brower with some Trust But Verify Nixon talking points. no, think it is Trust But Verify Reagan talking points.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Have you been smoking, BC?

Armstrong's sophisticated doping programme was caught without a positive test I happen to think that Froome's day will come too, sooner or later. I think that, but I don't know it. I think it won't be via a positive test either. Retrospective testing years later or a leak maybe. A drunken/stoned angry maltweet from Bradley, who knows. I don't know this, but I think it.

so your concerns are epistemological (is that a neologism of mine or legit word?). can we have the philosophers enter to give be some academy appeal to authority? cos we do have a few philosophers, they post in the politics thread in the general sub-forum.

I think Contador and Valverde can create enough doubt and muddy the waters, and recruit Arnie Baker and Dave Brower with some Trust But Verify Nixon talking points. no, think it is Trust But Verify Reagan talking points.

I don't think any philosophers would validate claims on here to know of Froome's doping. If they did then Edmund Gettier would put them in their place.

x

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Froome is not "probably" the most suspicious at "the moment". He is the most suspicious in the history of cycling since 2012 winner and former teammate Bradley Wiggins. We have many odd figures in cycling who have rocketed a couple of seasons but none coming from virtually nowhere to win Tour de France twice. In post-Lance era he is the ultimate spat in the face. Probably here to serve triple roles as Ruperts homeboy, a social experiment on how much cycling fan could endure and a posterboy for the chemical industries how talentless you could be and win with chemicals. I have not ruled out that this is some form of live reality show like "biggest loser" turned winner either.

I approve this message, still, I think, Wendy will come up with a good reply, he always does.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I don't think any philosophers would validate claims on here to know of Froome's doping. If they did then Edmund Gettier would put them in their place.

x

thought experiment. Did Betsy know that Lance doped to win the Tour before Tygart handed down his "reasoned decision"?

Your answer would be "no" on my analysis of your position. remember two sentences above, did Betsy Andreu, before Tygart?

Why did Tygart know?

What gives Tygart the authority to enable my knowledge?

If Betsy told me before Tygart handed down his reason decision that USADA WADA and the US Legal System and the Amaury Sport Organisation validated, if Betsy told me before this was ratified, was it possible for me to know? So what was the interruption of my knowledge that Betsy could not transfer her knowledge to me?

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

I don't think any philosophers would validate claims on here to know of Froome's doping. If they did then Edmund Gettier would put them in their place.

x

thought experiment. Did Betsy know that Lance doped to win the Tour before Tygart handed down his "reasoned decision"?

Your answer would be "no" on my analysis of your position. remember two sentences above, did Betsy Andreu, before Tygart?

Why did Tygart know?

What gives Tygart the authority to enable my knowledge?

If Betsy told me before Tygart handed down his reason decision that USADA WADA and the US Legal System and the Amaury Sport Organisation validated, if Betsy told me before this was ratified, was it possible for me to know? So what was the interruption of my knowledge that Betsy could not transfer her knowledge to me?

Did Betsy know? Yes. She had solid information from her husband who could not be judged as anything other than as a trustworthy source with firsthand experience of Armstrong's doping. If we believe her, then this was validated by the hospital room admission.

If you can find an equivalent person for Froome then we could say we 'know'. As it stands, what we have is somebody with a highly suspicious sudden improvement.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

If you can find an equivalent person for Froome then we could say we 'know'. As it stands, what we have is somebody with a highly suspicious sudden improvement.

yes, and this is the only disagreement. they layperson definition of knowledge. This thread overwhelmingly does not descriminate in this gap, or hypothetical gap of evidence for knowledge. Most can feel sated in evidence of a doped peloton and the rider leading the doped peloton being highly charged. Froome as cypher. Just because there are about a dozen other factors besides him leading and winning the Tour, does not offer any greater confirmation cos the confirmation was already absolute for these posters in the amorphous Clinic 12.

 

[wendybnt]

Uhh?

x

 

[pastronef]

Jani Brajkovic and co zig zaging right now in Utah over a very steep climb

 

[Lyon]

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

There is obviously so much wrong with that post, you might as well delete it. But then you know that

In the meantime, are you really sure you want to bring up the 'because Lance' meme in a discussion of Froome?

I can give you oath sworn testimony of numerous USPS/Discovery teammates.

All you can bring is 'he's riding faster than when he was 25'


Look, I can't watch Froome without thinking he is almost certainly dope assisted. But The 'almost' needs to be there.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Look, I can't watch Froome without thinking he is almost certainly dope assisted. But The 'almost' needs to be there.

No, you cant, thats why you enlisted on this forum. And, we love you for doing so buddy, again.

Jao.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

Brilliant. Quoting so the Skyborgs have to see it again.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

There is a difference between being sure and being able to prove something
When someone is obviously drunk, you don't say "well I suspect he's drunk, but until I get my hands on a blood test I can't be certain about it"
Nope, you know
Just like some people know that riders x and y are doped

---------------------------------------------


It was the case of Santambroglio, all the world inside cycling knew that, but he need to be proven anyway.
But is not the case of SKY or any of his members.

Huh?

So you're saying Santambrogio went from winning stages at Tirreno, Giro and a few top 10's at Lombardia to top 5 at the Giro and it's obvious to the entire cycling world, yet Froome goes from crashing into commissaires, zigzagging over capi and holding onto motorbikes to dominating the TdF on three occasions now but it's all ok?

Cut it out. You've proven on multiple threads in the Road Racing section you know a fair amount about the sport, why are you pushing the Froome fairytale?

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

To finish your first GT, the most difficult one, leTour, like this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8024

Better explanation for that 41 for Froome that year is he was 3 days with the group after a solo counter attack. He could pay that effort compared other riders that reserved for the ITT.

If you look at Froome's overall Tour he saved himself to try at select stages and coasted in others and finished in the autobus(check the results on the day before that ITT and the alpe D'Huez stage he finished in the autobus) he also finished last on the final stage, I'm guessing he was sightseeing during that stage.

Oh Mollema is a guy who started cycling at a 'late age' but he had some good results early on, unlike Froome.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

To finish your first GT, the most difficult one, leTour, like this:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8024

Better explanation for that 41 for Froome that year is he was 3 days with the group after a solo counter attack. He could pay that effort compared other riders that reserved for the ITT.

If you look at Froome's overall Tour he saved himself to try at select stages and coasted in others and finished in the autobus(check the results on the day before that ITT and the alpe D'Huez stage he finished in the autobus) he also finished last on the final stage, I'm guessing he was sightseeing during that stage.

Oh Mollema is a guy who started cycling at a 'late age' but he had some good results early on, unlike Froome.

As was Edvald Boasson Hagen

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Disagree. None of you know, even if you pretend that you do. By all means voice your suspicions of Froome, and I'll willingly join in with you because I think Froome is a cheater, but 'know'? No sorry, not one of us here knows as a certainty, regardless of how highly you might value your own opinion. We 'know' Contador and Valverde doped, that is a certainty, but we don't yet know about Froome, even though he is probably the most suspicious rider at the moment. We may never know.

That 'heads I win, tails you win' logic works both ways, and it favours the sceptics because you can't prove somebody is clean.

People who have seen it all and followed the sport for many years know the signs. People says they know because they haven't been wrong this far. The eye-test is simply the best judge, everything else is fairytales for beliebers in dire need of a national hero.

I cant tell you that if you know a lot of things you will be very surprised in both side, people that doped and people that no. I was like you 3 years ago, so I know how you think.

That sign you talk are going to be in an era with doping and in an era without doping: a team domination, a rider that is very good in one race and no later, and things like that. You are in a way toi think that when you see something that looks similar to 10 years ago, you say, it must be the same.

Would you be surprised if Horner doped with 35 and he didnt dope with 41 and won la Vuelta?

Thinks like that happens. Read Hamilton Book, he was wrong about performances that he though was doping.

I am know there is doping stll and some cyclist use EPO and with a neddle, and thay do in altitude, just microdose, but I dont know at wich extend that exist. I think that oval plate is more important that microdose, and most of the people, even in SKY, dont use.

I even belive someone used a motor in the bike...in the past, but at the level of doping that today, I prefer to think that in WT cycling is clean and belive all.

Danielson level 2014 colorado, etc.. was amazing,.. but you never know, he could be clean... it is that kind of performance to put an eye, but becouse he doped in the past, doped in a grand extend, but as I said, cycling is always a box of suprises, in a positive way and in a negative, and sometimes the most suspicious boy is clean.
It is was JV thought about Tondo, he didnt sign him becouse he won in Portugal, but he later admited he was wrong with him.

But you say about signs.. One sign is to ride just Tourr as Lance, he just raced at a good level Tour and Dauphiné. Ulle not very different. Good athletes, but both of them climbed above his level.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Disagree. None of you know, even if you pretend that you do.

Sorry Joachim but we have been over this dozens of times, and you have no idea what other posters on here do or do not know.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re:

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

Look his body, look the body of people as Quintana, look as his times in climbs, do an average, look how hard were the routes then, look how not just Lance, but a lot of people claimed he doped, by hearing a confesion, by asked to go to buy drugs, people inside as Hamilton, friends like becouse he won very doped people as OP people and for more things, I think there is a real proof in this. By anyway with all that evidence you may conclude he doped.

The opinion in a forum of the opinion of Jaja, is not any evidence, If tomorrow Porte said in a judge he doped and Frome as well, and with him more riders said the same...it is not a proof, but it is to take seriously into consideration.

If today Froome would be always in every climb above 7 watt/kg, I woudld say that even taking a lot of things into consideration, and more that he is not a pure climber, he dope and it is not possible another explanation, but he is far of those numbers.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Re: Re:

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

There is obviously so much wrong with that post, you might as well delete it. But then you know that

In the meantime, are you really sure you want to bring up the 'because Lance' meme in a discussion of Froome?

I can give you oath sworn testimony of numerous USPS/Discovery teammates.

All you can bring is 'he's riding faster than when he was 25'


Look, I can't watch Froome without thinking he is almost certainly dope assisted. But The 'almost' needs to be there.

It is exactly the same thing though. It is not absolutely certain that Lance doped, there are other possible explanations as Lyon points out. They are just so improbable that we judge them as ridiculous. It is not certain that Valverde and Contador doped (some people believe they didnt), you say you 'know' because the other explanations are too improbable for you to be considered. Similarly for many people here, including myself, the other explanations for Froome going from Andrey Zeits-level to 2x Tour winner are also too improbable to be valid. You may have a different threshold or judge the evidence differently. You may put more stock in opinions and stories of other people, or in UCI testing, or climbing times and opinions of scientists, or ... whereas I put more stock in analogies with past situations and my own perception of his riding and his interviews. You may not know if he dopes or you may even know that he doesnt. I can still know that he does.

I mainly wanted to point out that it is the same thought process, knowing Froome doped or knowing Contador doped. Knowing is always subjective to some degree. I won't argue the fact that the evidence that Contador doped in the past, is stronger than the evidence that Froome dopes now. But the 'almost' certain should 'almost always' be there if we're getting really pedantic. So why make a point of it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

QFT.

Perfect rhetoric, with a balanced palate and warm fruity aftertaste.

Chapeau, sir, chapeau.

 

[wendybnt]

How can we be sure even Armstrong used drugs? After all, we only have his word for it - all the rest is just innuendo and slander from sore losers, as established on these forums a number of times. And I wouldn't trust a known drug user like Armstrong.

There is obviously so much wrong with that post, you might as well delete it. But then you know that

In the meantime, are you really sure you want to bring up the 'because Lance' meme in a discussion of Froome?

I can give you oath sworn testimony of numerous USPS/Discovery teammates.

All you can bring is 'he's riding faster than when he was 25'


Look, I can't watch Froome without thinking he is almost certainly dope assisted. But The 'almost' needs to be there.

It is exactly the same thing though. It is not absolutely certain that Lance doped, there are other possible explanations as Lyon points out. They are just so improbable that we judge them as ridiculous. It is not certain that Valverde and Contador doped (some people believe they didnt), you say you 'know' because the other explanations are too improbable for you to be considered. Similarly for many people here, including myself, the other explanations for Froome going from Andrey Zeits-level to 2x Tour winner are also too improbable to be valid. You may have a different threshold or judge the evidence differently. You may put more stock in opinions and stories of other people, or in UCI testing, or climbing times and opinions of scientists, or ... whereas I put more stock in analogies with past situations and my own perception of his riding and his interviews. You may not know if he dopes or you may even know that he doesnt. I can still know that he does.

I mainly wanted to point out that it is the same thought process, knowing Froome doped or knowing Contador doped. Knowing is always subjective to some degree. I won't argue the fact that the evidence that Contador doped in the past, is stronger than the evidence that Froome dopes now. But the 'almost' certain should 'almost always' be there if we're getting really pedantic. So why make a point of it.

Because it isnt certain. It is almost certain (in my opinion), but not certain. It is no biggie, and everybody can think what they want. It seems to have hit a nerve with a few people. Maybe they are confusing 'almost certain' with 'definitely not' . Certainly not worth bickering over.

x

 

[blackcat]

Re:

Because it isnt certain. It is almost certain (in my opinion), but not certain. It is no biggie, and everybody can think what they want. It seems to have hit a nerve with a few people. Maybe they are confusing 'almost certain' with 'definitely not' . Certainly not worth bickering over.

x

i agree with you, and i agree with them, and it is not a cognitive dissonance. I just can marry the two positions as one, because we are merely talking about the semantic definition of knowledge. The putative discord is not about doping, it is about the knowledge of doping.

 

[Savant12]

I know what doping is. I know who Chris Froome is. Doping is in cycling. Chris Froome is a cyclist so Chris Froome must be a doper, and Nibali, and Contador, and Valverde and Quintana and I "know" most of the top guys likely are. These games of conjecture and semantics are fun. Let's do another one!

"Know" is a powerful weapon until it becomes "don't know" or "maybe" or "possibly" or indeed "false".

Past convicted dopers commented on in the forums still maintain their army of fans who delight in their recent accomplishments whilst forgetting their doping past.

Is Froome a doper? Maybe, possibly, could be, but ultimately we "don't know".
Why is more heat on Froome? It seems to be because he's either British or on a British team which derives much hatred on the interwebs.

So, keep digging and digging folks on that smoking gun because bringing Chris Froome down will bring down the whole doping culture just like it did with Lance...oh wait!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The persecution complex is cute but fatally flawed.

You'd know that if you had been around back when Armstrong was doing the same thing.