Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

The 4 top riders in Sky history - Thomas, Froome, Wiggins, Porte, were all absolute nobodies when Sky bought them, for absolute peanuts and turned them into gods.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

It's a level playing field in that once you decide to cross the line and dope, you're all cheats.
Yeah, the team strength don't make it fair, but tbf, Quintana's team is hardly bad. Sky, Movistar and Astana all have very good teams. BMC Etixx and Trek would also have decent GC teams. It's only Berto who has a shitty team, and he should have considered that more when signing a contract with Tinkoff.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

The 4 top riders in Sky history - Thomas, Froome, Wiggins, Porte, were all absolute nobodies when Sky bought them, for absolute peanuts and turned them into gods.

Tbf 4th/3rd at the Tdf hardly made Wiggins a nobody. But yeah, a one hit wonder was transformed into a Tour winner, and the point is definitely valid for the other three

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

The 4 top riders in Sky history - Thomas, Froome, Wiggins, Porte, were all absolute nobodies when Sky bought them, for absolute peanuts and turned them into gods.

Tbf 4th/3rd at the Tdf hardly made Wiggins a nobody. But yeah, a one hit wonder was transformed into a Tour winner, and the point is definitely valid for the other three

note that wiggins got his third spot mainly by training in manchester with people from BC/Sky.
JV never saw him in 2009.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

The 4 top riders in Sky history - Thomas, Froome, Wiggins, Porte, were all absolute nobodies when Sky bought them, for absolute peanuts and turned them into gods.

Tbf 4th/3rd at the Tdf hardly made Wiggins a nobody. But yeah, a one hit wonder was transformed into a Tour winner, and the point is definitely valid for the other three

No, it's definitely not valid for the other three.

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

It's most true for Froome, ironically the one who turned out to be the best of the quartet

 

[deeno1975]

Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Wonder if they checked for a motor otherwise the only hope is if the motor catches fire on tv and "Froomeys" 2 pins spin out at 300rpm.

Maybe they should measure in horse power and not watts!

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Wonder if they checked for a motor otherwise the only hope is if the motor catches fire on tv and "Froomeys" 2 pins spin out at 300rpm.

Maybe they should measure in horse power and not watts!

That's the issue with motors - you need to be caught red-handed or you'll never get caught. No way to test for it retrospectively.
Perhaps someone will spill the beans.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

It's my view froome flew solo regarding doping for the 2011 Vuelta - definitely not under the guidance of Sky - however once he had done that vuelta what could sky do? They'd have known but how could they let him go? That would be a tacit acceptance he doped on their watch...I don't believe there is team wide sky doping. I believe it's a select handful. 2010 they did it clean, it was embarrassing.

I'd argue the opposite. Before the 2011 Vuelta, during his time at Sky, Froome was practically as unlikely as any other rider in the peloton to be doping. Then suddenly he improves big time. Suspicious for sure, and with Sky's zero tolerance policy, they should have forced him out if they genuinely wanted to be clean and didn't just say that **** for PR purposes. If he hadn't renewed with Sky, Froome had been clean during his time at Sky except for one race, and then Sky ditched him immediately after that one race. I certainly wouldn't point any fingers at Sky if they did that.

and he wonders why he gets sh**

Look at his competition. You reckon it's possible to win clean? It's a level playing field.
And what's he supposed to say?

"Chris, are you doping?"
"Yes, but so are all my rivals. Come at me UCI with your two year suspension and come at me lawsuits for unproven allegations"

It's not a level playing field at all, Team Sky's budget is so much higher than most other teams. Like in every team sport it's the money that decides all. And money goes far beyond doping as well: just look at his team-mates, they could drop all GC contenders in the Tour and still have 5 riders left. Just buy the strongest riders on the market and there's no way you can lose. Froome will never be in trouble in this year's Tour simply because of his ridiculously strong team compared to the other contenders.

The 4 top riders in Sky history - Thomas, Froome, Wiggins, Porte, were all absolute nobodies when Sky bought them, for absolute peanuts and turned them into gods.

Really Wiggins was a nobody before Sky bought him? And the same with Porte...folk making stuff up helps no one

 

[roundabout]

And of course Wiggins was not bought for peanuts.

And neither was Porte.

 

[SeriousSam]

Froome showed enough in his early early days to suggest that he could be a decent dom at WT level in the future. Ok that's a lot less than what he can do now.
But if you're going to refuse programmes, then you probably have moral values, and they're unlikely to change. So either you go on programmes right from the start, or you don't go on them at all.

On the other hand, some manage to achieve success, and then decide they no longer want to risk this and stop. A couple of recent examples of this would be Cobo and Schleck.

But it's very unlikely that some would start in the middle of their career. This only happens when a) the athlete didn't have any access to PEDs earlier in their career, b) they're at risk of losing their career because they're not performing well enough or c) team sponsorship risk -> team fuelled programmes (eg Katusha last year)

The perceived risks and benefits of doping change over time, as do (moral) values. After losing to what an athlete suspects are cheaters, he may well start cheating himself, or ramping up the program, rationalising that everyone is on it

There's even a Sir Bradley Wiggins quote indicative of similar thinking, one one where he talks about how disappointed he was fortunes and fame failed to naturally fall into his lap following his first gold medal. He then looked at the Tour de France to turn his perceived talent into the reward he felt he deserved.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

 

[pastronef]

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
Yesterday's performance by @chrisfroome could be considered a perfect example of W' principle.

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/741550892139286528

 

[DFA123]

Jeroen Swart ‏@JeroenSwart
Yesterday's performance by @chrisfroome could be considered a perfect example of W' principle.

https://twitter.com/JeroenSwart/status/741550892139286528

It was very well executed. Ride just at threshold then go anaerobic in the last five minutes. If someone like Froome is riding to power like that, ignoring attacks, it's very difficult for anyone else to beat him unless they are physically stronger.

I wish power meters were banned from racing.

 

[deeno1975]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

So a "clean" Froome thrashes' a doped Contador and you don't see any hypocrisy in that???

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

Except that La Flo recognizes and makes no apologies for Alberto doping. So you are wrong. While so many of the Froome boys still can't accept that he dopes also.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I wish power meters were banned from racing.

Yep yep
We can only hope

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

So a "clean" Froome thrashes' a doped Contador and you don't see any hypocrisy in that???

That's not the point, if a doped to the gills Contador won yesterday, there wouldn't be word of criticism directed to him by his fans.

It would be celebrated. That has been the case with any of his previous wins.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I saw Dr Swart and Dr Tucker had an argumet on twitter again. Swart upset that Tucker casts doubts over Froome, Tucker upset a performance by f.ex. Contador is met with way more calls of "doper! cheat!" than Froome.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

So a "clean" Froome thrashes' a doped Contador and you don't see any hypocrisy in that???

That's not the point, if a doped to the gills Contador won yesterday, there wouldn't be word of criticism directed to him by his fans.

It would be celebrated. That has been the case with any of his previous wins.

But the Anglo Sky fans would be screaming "doper! doper!". None of that yesterday.
I saw it on Bikeretard, 1 good performance by Alberto, "must have gotten the dosage right" "must have had a steak". A good performance by Froome "get in there Froomey" "wonder what excuses Bertie will come up with now" "did Bert hurt his toe or did aliens abduct his favorite teddy bear?"

 

[deeno1975]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

So a "clean" Froome thrashes' a doped Contador and you don't see any hypocrisy in that???

That's not the point, if a doped to the gills Contador won yesterday, there wouldn't be word of criticism directed to him by his fans.

It would be celebrated. That has been the case with any of his previous wins.

Contador doesn't preach from on high that he is clean, Sky, Froome make it clear that they are not cheating and that marginal BS makes the difference. Hence hypocrisy.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

Except that La Flo recognizes and makes no apologies for Alberto doping. So you are wrong. While so many of the Froome boys still can't accept that he dopes also.

Because their is 0 proof froome dopes or doped it is easy then to defend him. Contador has tested positive and has been in dodgy teams hard to defend him. If one day evidence froome dopes does appear less people will defend him is normal.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

I'm fed up with this, he's vroom vrooming away from everyone on his moped. It's nonsense.

Meanwhile its obviously perfectly fine for Alberto to dope.

Your double standards makes me sick

So a "clean" Froome thrashes' a doped Contador and you don't see any hypocrisy in that???

That's not the point, if a doped to the gills Contador won yesterday, there wouldn't be word of criticism directed to him by his fans.

It would be celebrated. That has been the case with any of his previous wins.

But the Anglo Sky fans would be screaming "doper! doper!". None of that yesterday.
I saw it on Bikeretard, 1 good performance by Alberto, "must have gotten the dosage right" "must have had a steak". A good performance by Froome "get in there Froomey" "wonder what excuses Bertie will come up with now" "did Bert hurt his toe or did aliens abduct his favorite teddy bear?"

Flo, bikeradar is not a site to click on. let it go

 

[gooner]

Re:

I saw Dr Swart and Dr Tucker had an argumet on twitter again. Swart upset that Tucker casts doubts over Froome, Tucker upset a performance by f.ex. Contador is met with way more calls of "doper! cheat!" than Froome.

Again, not the point. It's the inconsistency of yourself and others who would have no problem celebrating a Contador win today.

I don't think I've ever heard a rider get as much calls of "doper" and "cheat" as Froome at last year's Tour.

That Tour was a circus of it.