Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 86 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
horsinabout said:
No Froome is now very questionable. He is most likely the one who was most willing to stick his arms up in the air the highest and elect to do BC/Sky's dirty doping work for them, that is what I think. And more questions need to be asked in the general media about Froome's rise to the top.
You watch way too much Marvel superhero stuff.. :rolleyes:

This isn't one of those movies where you go into lab and common out with bulging muscles and turn green or something when you are angry...
 
Feb 1, 2013
116
0
0
thehog said:
Well you did say it was the "main evidence" - what did you expect me believe you meant?

This thread is not a guessing game.


You underestmate those who follow Pro Cycling. People who have watched 1000’s of hours of cycling over 10-20 years know balony when they see it.

Frooome is balony.

Pure and simple.

There’s not a lot of guessing about it.

It reletivly simple really.

Go watch the 2012 Tour – first MTF – turn the sound down on the commentry. Watch it. No sound. Silence. What do you see in the last 4kim? Did it seem real?

Honest opinion.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcq-jDkhqU - 22.30 onwards.
I wonder what Evans was thinking when (at @34:11 in the video) he saw Froome sprint past him. He looks like he had a "WTF" moment.
:D
 
Digger said:
Well if we want to go along with what 'JV said' then let's look at JV saying he thinks Froome could do 39mins for the Alpe...serious implications.

As regards Sky and Julich addressing his technical deficiencies - let's go with that for one minute. Why did it take almost two years for it to click into place...and when it did click into place, why so suddenly in such a high quality race as his contract was about to be let run out, and as DB had said rated Froome the lowest of all the Sky squad...One would have thought that Froome would have shown signs of these technical improvements at the Tour of Poland just before the Vuelta...the tour of Poland where he was mid pack mediocrity in a very mediocre field in the first place.
The national bias shown towards Froome and Sky is complete and utter horsesh**. (From both the media and the fans).
Regarding JV...In 2004 he gave an interview saying how amazing lance is. He also tried to sign Alberto, saying that he may not have doped...JV has a dog in this fight whether he admits it or not...Sky doping does not look good for JV. Because of Wiggins' fourth place with Garmin. Also JV needs to sell this idea of clean cycling so as to preserve sponsors...otherwise it's Doug Ellis' money which will be used again and again.
For starters Julich was not with Sky in 2010.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
spalco said:
I fully agree with you that Vaughters' explanations of why he was interested in signing Froome were not convincing, but what you said in the post I quoted was simply an unreasonable polemical cheap shot imo.
Vaughters got the second pick of the Aigle 'big numbers' centre, or should we say the second in line. Lets wait and see if Navardaukas will make such an impact as Froome has done, but, we all know he rides for Team Wigan, not the Man U of cycling.

According to Bobby Julich that was pretty much the case:
We all know about Bobby J. The man who only doped at Cofidis and at the Vuelta 1996, the natural born liar.

Yep, a trustworthy fellow. And, dont forget, also a doctor who recognizes bilharzia like not expert ever has done before.

Bobby Julich. Like Michael Boogerd telling the world Thomas Dekker had the best numbers he ever saw.

Good he is back with Ocho.
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
thehog said:
Well you did say it was the "main evidence" - what did you expect me believe you meant?

This thread is not a guessing game.


You underestmate those who follow Pro Cycling. People who have watched 1000’s of hours of cycling over 10-20 years know balony when they see it.

Frooome is balony.

Pure and simple.

There’s not a lot of guessing about it.

It reletivly simple really.

Go watch the 2012 Tour – first MTF – turn the sound down on the commentry. Watch it. No sound. Silence. What do you see in the last 4kim? Did it seem real?

Honest opinion.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcq-jDkhqU - 22.30 onwards.
That was the last stage I could watch before going on holiday, and it turned out as a well-planned week and a half to recover. I can recommend such (almost) Tour-free weeks to anyone.

Since then, my opposition against Sky has faded a bit though, but that's just the realisation that Sky's not by far the only dirty team out there. They bring it on themselves with boring racing and claims about being a clean team, offering us critical cycling fans a reason to prove them wrong, but it's still not like Saxo or Astana are any better. Those two teams have more brains, and on top of that they're proven dopers.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
martinvickers said:
It ain't so. Or at least, what you are saying is not what I said.

I've said it often enough before, past performance is not an indication of future returns. You are mixing up statistics and probabilities.
No, you can use statistics to get to set a probability. If I drop a stone a 100 time, what's the probability it also drops the 101 time? Observation. A scientific tool.

No, it's faith. You simply can't predict the future of any one person simply by looking at the past of others. It's just not a logical position, however attractive it is to your instincts.
Nonsense. Absolute and utter nonsense. I am not prdicting the future (nice strawman, care to take it down?), I am actually comparing past events. Froome's ascent is not something in the future, the whole problem here is that it is already happening.

Sorry Martin, I react very badly on strawman and this one deserves deep scorn. I suspect you are smart enough to realize I try to compare things which are undisputed facts.

My views on Froome, Wiggins and Sky are pretty well known; but views are ALL they are. And I've looked at the same numbers, and read the same books, and watched the same videos as everyone else. They are still views. No more. And not, on their own, anything like enough.
Enough for what? I destroyed this strawman, thus what is there left to cling to? Are you saying you are deluding yourself as you don't dare to draw the logical conclusions.

I think that you fall into the trap of many others: This is not a court of law. If this was a court of law I would agree, we haven't got anything on Sky (Brailsford deserves a punishment, but both UCI as BC are spineless cowards).

It's impossible to prove they're clean, because you can't prove a negative, end of story, and in any event the information base is too scant.
I knew someone would bring this up :rolleyes:

But there is of course a way and Wiggins once wanted to go that way: Post the neccesary medical records, be transparent in your actions.

It's sad you refuse to acknowledge there isn't away to go foprward and instead defend the status quo.

But you can't prove them dirty either - there is nothing like enough evidence to conclude that, however much some people wish there was. All you can do is keep watching, keep testing, nd keep applying pressure to get anti-doping increased.
And full marks for you. We can not and should not prosecute just because of a statitical likelihood or suspicion. But this is not a court of law.

I'll conclude with only one thing. I think it is entirely reasonable, and understandable to fear that Sky dope, or to suspect they dope.

But there are quite a few here, and i don't necessarily include you, Franklin, but quite a few who don't fear or suspect they dope.

They hope they dope. And that is really a rather different, and rather less noble thing.
Agreed. The antipathy Wiggins evokes is reason for people to hope he doped and get's caught. Bias from the other side. I do not agree with it, indeed I hope fiercely they are clean!

But that does not change the data we all have access to.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
MatParker117 said:
For starters Julich was not with Sky in 2010.
That is all you got?

No response to the rest?

Of course not. Froome is doping. The Sky GT A team is doping. It will out eventually.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Froome19 said:
You watch way too much Marvel superhero stuff.. :rolleyes:

This isn't one of those movies where you go into lab and common out with bulging muscles and turn green or something when you are angry...
I appreciate that the transformation takes longer than a quick twirl round followed by bursting out of a telephone booth. However, the starting point A...............on to..................B leaves one questioning not only Froome and his doping possibilities, but his base line natural talent moreover, which is questionable especially after reading you link :rolleyes: There roll eyes back.
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Pentacycle said:
That's BS, although someone suggested that 36th place indicated some kind of ability. However, it doesn't indicate his limits.

Who knows what kind of form or equipment he was competing with there? He had to manage all by himself, meaning he had a certain disadvantage over his opponents. On top of that he lost close to a minute because of a crash.

The main 'evidence' for Froome's engine are his undisclosed lab tests results, in which his numbers were reportedly off the charts. Numbers are unknown, but JV said that it's not for our eyes to see, just for insiders.
Imo you can see from the splits it's more like 30 seconds, and anyway that would only have moved him up to 34th
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
So I'm guessing the 35 guys who finished ahead of Froome in that ITT, where Froome should the world he had a 'big engine' and numbers to die for, have all been signed up by WT teams and have bagged wins in GT's and the big week long stage races and the big one day races.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,399
0
0
Careful, they'll argue soon that Peter Velits who got 38th (dont have file in front of me now dont know exact number) almost won the 2010 Vuelta and therefore Froome is very talented and was always ready to shine.
 
Baltazar said:
I wonder what Evans was thinking when (at @34:11 in the video) he saw Froome sprint past him. He looks like he had a "WTF" moment.
:D
Yes and Froome after riding on the front for 2.1km was able to breeze past Evans and then he can even put his arms up at the end.

Incredible.
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Havetts said:
Careful, they'll argue soon that Peter Velits who got 38th (dont have file in front of me now dont know exact number) almost won the 2010 Vuelta and therefore Froome is very talented and was always ready to shine.
Nah Peter sucked that day, he even got beat by his brother.
 
sky budget

thehog said:
Wait for it... next up, Parker will post the Sky budget and say there's no line item for doping.
why not consider team skys zero tolerance policy comparing that statement
with the lot of noise here in the clinic

it is likely to be factual as thus far no-one has information to the contrary

Mark L
 
that's clear

Benotti69 said:
That is all you got?

No response to the rest?

Of course not. Froome is doping. The Sky GT A team is doping. It will out eventually.
thanks for clearing that one up benny.............thousands of pages in various team sky threads and you could have told us all along

now i await your revelations.............what are team sky doing and just how are they getting away with it?

Mark L
 
Jul 11, 2012
87
0
0
Hard to imagine that Sky will be outed before they have run their course as a bankable asset for the UCI, Murdoch inc and the rest.

Armstrong was a polarising personality, and those who didn't buy it were spurred on by his arrogance and bullying. The evidence was there for years and it still took an ill-advised comeback ten years after he started winning to set things in motion for mainstream acceptance of the lie.

What have we got on Sky? No positives we're aware of, just unbelievable performances. We're all going on what we see on the TV cameras. Unless there's a major change at the top of the sport - and Cookson is definitely not it - then I can't see anything coming out for a while.
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
FrankChickens said:
Hard to imagine that Sky will be outed before they have run their course as a bankable asset for the UCI, Murdoch inc and the rest.

Armstrong was a polarising personality, and those who didn't buy it were spurred on by his arrogance and bullying. The evidence was there for years and it still took an ill-advised comeback ten years after he started winning to set things in motion for mainstream acceptance of the lie.

What have we got on Sky? No positives we're aware of, just unbelievable performances. We're all going on what we see on the TV cameras. Unless there's a major change at the top of the sport - and Cookson is definitely not it - then I can't see anything coming out for a while.
Sky have p***ed off enough people, probably including Kimmage, to make more than enough enemies to take them down if they are systematically doping. Time will tell. Also there is a culture in the press in this country to build people up to knock them down. Any non-Murdoch paper would kill for a Sky doping story.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
thehog said:
Yes and Froome after riding on the front for 2.1km was able to breeze past Evans and then he can even put his arms up at the end.

Incredible.
hog, what this year tour winner would be ok for you?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Spencer the Half Wit said:
Sky have p***ed off enough people, probably including Kimmage, to make more than enough enemies to take them down if they are systematically doping. Time will tell. Also there is a culture in the press in this country to build people up to knock them down. Any non-Murdoch paper would kill for a Sky doping story.
Wouldnt say so if you read the Guardian...

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1565249/interview-william-fotheringham

William Fotheringham said:
The more British stars there are, the more races they will do well in, and the more the papers will be forced to look outside the Tour if guys like Gee start getting up there in races like Paris-Nice. When Kelly and Roche were winning, that was a can't miss race. But you can't go there and hope to get decent space writing about Contador or Pierrick Fedrigo.

...

Again, I'll hark back to Roule Britannia. I wrote that book first time round in 2004, and that year and 2005 there wasn't a single Brit in the Tour. There were little stirrings but no stars. David Millar's career was over and Jeremy Hunt was going nowhere. I thought then that there would be new guys like Charly Wegelius coming through, but nothing on the Cav scale. Even in 2007, I reckoned Cav might win the odd stage later on - say by 2009, 2010 if he kept progressing - and that was why the Guardian started running his column.
Does that look like an incentive to bust Team Sky?

Lets go on:
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=15036
By Giles Belbin
Date: 6/23/2009

WF said:
DP: So you think the races are too controlled from the team cars?

WF: Exactly. If you compare the Indurain tours and the Armstrong tours, they were trying to control the race in the same way but it's just got too machine-esque now.
Must say I didnt read all of WF's pieces but I bet he never complained on Team Sky Train carbon copy tactics of Banesto and Postal.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Not sure what relevance either article actually has, but if they thought there was a story British journalists would go after it. Think the various conspiracists that believe everyone from the UCI, the entire British Press Corps, the Illuminati and the Ikea monkey are in on the cover up of Team Sky need to dial it back a little :p
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Wouldnt say so if you read the Guardian...

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1565249/interview-william-fotheringham

Does that look like an incentive to bust Team Sky?

Lets go on:
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=15036
By Giles Belbin
Date: 6/23/2009


Must say I didnt read all of WF's pieces but I bet he never complained on Team Sky Train carbon copy tactics of Banesto and Postal.
The Guardian also have Wiggins as an occassional columnist and Fothrington didn't cover himself in glory during the Armstrong years, but if they had evidence on Sky you can bet that they would love to stick one to Murdoch. Slightly ot but Murdoch has just announced he is to divorce his wife. You won't read any of that in his newspapers but the rest of them have taken great glee in reporting it.

There has been plenty of reporting about Sky's tactics being similar to postal, but always with the caveat of no evidence of doping blah, blah, blah.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Wouldnt say so if you read the Guardian...

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2010/7/16/1565249/interview-william-fotheringham

Does that look like an incentive to bust Team Sky?

Lets go on:
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=15036
By Giles Belbin
Date: 6/23/2009


Must say I didnt read all of WF's pieces but I bet he never complained on Team Sky Train carbon copy tactics of Banesto and Postal.
Two articles to extrapolate to the whole British media?
And articles with no relevance, of course they would have an incentive but only if there is sufficient proof of anything. The Times have already published quite a few articles on Sky, not the David Walsh ones where he raises the issue and then gives excuses, but proper ones demanding answers.


They would probably back off a bit with the queen or the royal couple, but then again on second thoughts probably not.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
airstream said:
hog, what this year tour winner would be ok for you?
I don't think the Hog watches the Tour.. or if he does he spends it watching old replays of Lance winning and how he was right once.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS