the sceptic said:
Savant12 said:
It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.
Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.
The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.
I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.
I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!
Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.
Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.
The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.
"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.