Re: Re:
Merckx index said:
The Hitch said:
Sky defenders absolutely are a minority. On English speaking forums it may seem like they are not but cycling fanbase is so much bigger than just England and a few Americans and once you take away the nationalism (the reason for which 99% of people believe Froome to begin with) it becomes very clear that they are a small minority.
You may be right, but I'd have to see some actual stats before I'd believe that. Obviously, of course, it depends on the population base we use.
.
Not ideal but the stat I have is that poll by Denmark's largest newspaper in 2013. "Is froome doping". 80% yes.
Also in Ireland when Walsh was on off the ball the presenters told him that the vast majority of people who were calling in did so on the sceptics side.
Probably there is more skepticism of Froome among hard-core fans than among more casual ones.
Actually I disagree on that. I think the non cycling attitude to cycling is - its all doped. Even in the UK cycling was viewed as a doped sport until they had to pump the breaks massively in 2012 to cash in. Its very easy to dismiss the sport as doped if you are not emotionally invested in it. I used to be very mad at this myself back when I was a bigger cycling fan than I am now, the way fans from other sports would dismiss my sport as the one that is doped.
In fact, the main Sky line of argument during this last TDF was precisely that only people who don't really follow cycling believe Froome is doped. If only they did, they would realize that its all about marginal gains now and that its different from 1999.
That continues to be a common portrayal of the sceptic on the sky corners of the internet. We are all people who don't follow the sport and if we did we would realize its all clean now.
In any case I don't think one's level of interest in the sport is a major variable. British politician Jacob Rees Mogg was on a political comedy show a few weeks ago and even though he's not a sports fan he could see through the "only Russia dopes" BS
immediately, picking it apart expertly. Others who have been watching for decades still think athletics is clean and that any minor problems will all be ironed out by next years olympics.
I think its more to do with how sceptical or naive someone is as a human being. Those of us who believe sport is corrupt and doped are probably less likely to be religious, and less likely to believe the promises of political leaders or fall victim to populism, and less likely to give our credit card numbers to the bloke on the phone who says he will send you diamonds worth millions in return.
Personally, I reached the conclusion that cycling as a sport is corrupt and doped in 2010, and there was a lot less evidence for that then than there is now. Back then one could actually make the case cycling was cleaning up (blood passport hadn't been exposed, times were getting slower temporarily, corruption hadn't been exposed at the UCI and IAAF to the same level, I hadn't seen just how much potential there is for corruption at grass roots level).
I reached that conclusion because my life experience away from sport has taught me that you should never underestimate the potential for humans to cheat when there is money on the line. In fact I expect it. I can't possibly imagine any sociological situation where a large group of humans all decide not to take advantage of an opportunity that will increase their lot in life.
I also have a very strict policy of NEVER trusting liars unless they are reborn through sacrifice and pay a price for their actions. Cycling is filled to the brim with liars who never paid for their actions and continue to profit for them. Can't trust that. No way.
I say that to make clear that my opinions have almost nothing to do with cycling and everything to do with how I approach life. And I think that is the same for many others.
Also, it seems to me the nationalism angle works both ways. Just as Brits are more likely to be supportive of Froome because they view him as one of their own, people in other countries are likely to be less supportive because he isn't one of their own. Is the support for Contador among Spaniards any less than that for Froome among the British?.So even if Froome supporters are a small minority, that might be a reflection of the fact that native English speakers are a small minority in Europe, not to mention other countries that send riders to pro events.
Its a good point with Contador. Clearly there are some of those idiots around too - In fact the person who started this thread is someone who I consider irrational on the case of Contador who's motivation for doubting Froome was likely because he was upset Froome beat Contador.
But Contador and most other riders are different to Sky because Sky goes deeper than being one rider from the country who happens to win.
Sky are a national team who went into the sport explicitly hiring every Brit they could get their hands on, employing what they publicly claim is a British attitude to sport (one of fair play and training hard) and now claim that it was the presence of British staff and riders and the British attitude that has cleaned the sport up and showed all the foreigners how to win clean.
Which makes it a more profound connection with patriotism than Contador - one rider in a nation that has always had success in the sport, riding for a foreign team.
The other thing is that the main point of contention for any die hard fan isn't to believe the rival is doped but to first of all believe their rider is clean.
And the easiest way to do so, these days, in 2015, is to buy into the wider "cycling has turned a corner and is clean now" logic.
Maybe not Contador, with all the baggage he carries. Most Contador fans I know accept he doped. But say Nibali or in particular Evans or TJVG or Quintana fans will often more readily entertain the idea that Froome is clean - because its part of the wider narrative that the whole sport is clean. Which in turn is how they know their riders is clean.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram