Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 87 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ebandit said:
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
What policy is that? Send me the link when you get a chance ;)

If you can find the zero tolorance policy I'd love to spend the time reading it.

Sadly is doesn't actually exist.

Just a sound bite.

hot air.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
horsinabout said:
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.
I find it hard to consider the concept that Froome has a baseline natural talent which is any less than say Rui Costa (assuming Costa does not dope, which is saying something and of course that Froome does). It just does not make sense any other way unless you would like to go down the path of wild conspiracy theories. Does Froome have more talent than Richie Porte? Bradley Wiggins? Rigoberto Uran? Unless he was the only one volunteering to get given the serum and get fully boosted up rather than only partially.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
Froome19 said:
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.
Right in what? right saying Lance doped lol? Well now I understand you apparently such remarkable solution makes doping in cycling the biggest hobby. :) :p

hog, I realize my pluralistic way of thinking confuses you, because there are no any contradictions and intricacies in Sky case in your opinion and hence all people who treat Sky neutrally and better are automatically awarded with obsessive definition 'skybots'... But I'd anyway ask you for the last time.
If one will abstract from obsessive idea 'Froome is a joke'...
1. Who is more legitimate winner of the 100th Tour if not Froome (in terms of doping)?
2. Is it legitimate to bash a rider based on the criteria of how he looks on his bike from fan viewpoint?
3. What would you do, if Sky were popped or say doping in cycling would be eradicated completely?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Froome is also a bit of 'plastic' Brit as the Daily Fail is fond of calling them, foreign born/based athletes that switch allegiances either because they can't get into their own country's national squad, or can get better funding/support/coverage from their adopted country so they switch. We like them when they win, but the daggers come out pretty quickly if they don't and if there is anything suspect them. I think the press would be slow to go after Wiggins but quick to hang Froome out to dry if they found the right amount of dirt.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Spencer the Half Wit said:
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.
Thats why I mentioned the Guardian [they sometimes come with controversial stuff dont they], but, could be my suspicious mind, I dont see WF uncovering/having the incentive to uncover a British Cycling doping ring looking at those two interviews, do you?

Doesnt his brother write for the Independent as cycling correspondent?

A bit like dopers not telling all because they dont want others getting affected, read loose their jobs.

@Froome19: did you see the question a few pages back on the different versions of the bilharzia thingie?
 
JimmyFingers said:
Froome is also a bit of 'plastic' Brit as the Daily Fail is fond of calling them, foreign born/based athletes that switch allegiances either because they can't get into their own country's national squad, or can get better funding/support/coverage from their adopted country so they switch. We like them when they win, but the daggers come out pretty quickly if they don't and if there is anything suspect them. I think the press would be slow to go after Wiggins but quick to hang Froome out to dry if they found the right amount of dirt.
Just wait till the Dawg wins and Michelle becomes the taste of Essex upon Monaco.

Surely a photoshoot in Hello magazine?

And the wedding will be huge! John Terry will surely get an invite, yes?
 
clinician

airstream said:
Right in what? right saying Lance doped lol? Well now I understand you apparently such remarkable solution makes doping in cycling the biggest hobby. :) :p

What would you do, if Sky were popped or say doping in cycling would be eradicated completely?
.........it's when team sky are 'popped' grrrr...........froomey looks so ugly on his bike............how could he NOT be doping?

if doping indeed was eradicated? heck i would have to find a proper hobby
................jeeeez i might even ride my bicycle

Mark L
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,122
0
0
ebandit said:
if doping indeed was eradicated? heck i would have to find a proper hobby
................jeeeez i might even ride my bicycle

Mark L
I bet this circumstance would change NOTHING in this subforum. Any dominant rider would anyway be damned, called a joke, declared a mockery based on one's huge 20 year old sofa cycling experience lol etc etc etc...
 
May 26, 2009
4,114
0
0
Froome19 said:
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.
I'd guess that the Hog has seen more Tours than you've seen. This years will be your what, second or third?

thehog said:
Apollo 13 is my favourite film.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the first 12 now that I've seen 13.
I've seen Apollo 18. Does that mean I've missed the previous 17 movies.
 
Apr 27, 2010
110
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.
How do you get that he lost up to a minute. The crash was just after the start and he hadn't reach top speed. From he hits the the guy until he is back on the bike it takes around 6 seconds.

Lets be fair and say he lost 20 seconds at the most. Anyway who is so blind he can't see a man standing on the left side of the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DCe4QVO0PE
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Thats why I mentioned the Guardian [they sometimes come with controversial stuff dont they], but, could be my suspicious mind, I dont see WF uncovering/having the incentive to uncover a British Cycling doping ring looking at those two interviews, do you?

Doesnt his brother write for the Independent as cycling correspondent?

A bit like dopers not telling all because they dont want others getting affected, read loose their jobs.

@Froome19: did you see the question a few pages back on the different versions of the bilharzia thingie?
I don't think he would go and try to uncover evidence, partly because it would blacken his name with BC and partly because I think he believes they are clean and therefore why bother looking, but if evidence came his way I've got no doubt he would publish it.

If Sky are doping (and I don't know either way) it will come out eventually, as there has to be too many people involved for everybody to keep quiet.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
airstream said:
I bet this circumstance would change NOTHING in this subforum. Any dominant rider would anyway be damned, called a joke, declared a mockery based on one's huge 20 year old sofa cycling experience lol etc etc etc...
We are lucky we have you for a fair and balanced point of view.
 
BYOP88 said:
I'd guess that the Hog has seen more Tours than you've seen. This years will be your what, second or third?



I've seen Apollo 18. Does that mean I've missed the previous 17 movies.
Hopefully they'll release the first 17 movies on a quadruple Bluray box set.

In 2020 you'll get "The Dawg years". Chris Froome's amazing 7 back to back Tour wins. 140 stages of Sky sitting on the front. Will be awesome viewing.
 
Franklin said:
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.
If I flip a coin 100 times and get heads 100 times, what´s the probability to get head the 101 time?

Your example is not about statistics or probability, it is about gravity.


***

I do not care about Froome and my comment would suit more into other thread like ""clean", "suspect", "miraculous" and "mutants". But my point is: judgements based on indirect evidence are extremly prone to thinking errors and different kind of (heuristic, confirmation) biases. Decades of research in psychology have proved it. Majority of these errors do not come from education or lack of it, but are evolutionary, they are wired in our brains - thats why even experts and educated are biased.

I will make couple of hypothetical examples how I can easily change your probability estimates.

Franklin 1, Franklin 2 and Franklin 3 have to make probablity estimate about Froome. What is the probability that he doped? All 3 Franklins are identical, same knowledge, same information. Only difference is that before making their estimation Franklin 1 sees photos of positive things (smiling people, furry kittens, whatever), Franklin 2 sees photos of negative things (drugs, guns, whatever), Franklin 3 sees nothing. I can guarantee you that all 3 probability estimates are different: Franklin 1 gives lowest, Franklin 2 highest and Franklin 3 somewhere between.

Or to make it more relevant. Same set. Again 3 identical Franklins. But before making estimates researcher asks Franklin 1 question: "What do you think, probability of Froome as doper is it higher or lower than 25%?"

Franklin 2 gets - higher or lower than 90%. Franklin 3 gets third anchor - 50%, higher, or lower. Again I can guarantee that after hearing these questions 3 Franklins give different probabilities, first lowest, second highest, third somewhere between.

Overall there are so many psychological effects in work all the time, creating different biases all the time, that I cannot even count them. Instead, I suggest you to read Daniel Kahnemann´s "Thinking, Fast and Slow". His a Nobel prize winner, whos research more than 40 years ago actually started from a puzzle: Kahnemann thought that he is good intuitive statistician (he was also trained in statistics), but in his work he discovered over time that actually he is very bad statistician...

Or lets make another example. You know Greg LeMond, but do you remember that after his demise he was trying explain it in may ways: I had mental problems, I had unexplained fatique, I never recovered from shotgun accident. He told several stories, all seemed plausible, people listened and nodded.
I took years before LeMond embraced another (and this time correct) explanation - new and powerful drug arrived. But why didnt he see it eralier? He was an expert, insider, he saw wattages, he saw how fat asses suddenly started to climb, he saw ascent times etc. And again in 1999 when LA suddenly won, LeMond welcomed him as clean winner. Again why, why, why LeMond didnt see it? He is an expert, all the cues where there, ascent times, nonclimber sprinting up the mountains etc. Again, reason are biases, many different and unaivodable biases.

Today, situation is reversed. We know what has happened during last 20 years and it will influence all our judgements, we are building stories and explanations based on this, we are seeing and interpreting causalities based on this. When Vayer gives his data from 1989-2011 http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=20803 we are looking at it and seems very convincing. But actually it is not. Thats why I showed my skepeticism in another thread why numbers what Vayer gives help us very little to make judgements about current crop of riders.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
thehog said:
Just wait till the Dawg wins and Michelle becomes the taste of Essex upon Monaco.

Surely a photoshoot in Hello magazine?

And the wedding will be huge! John Terry will surely get an invite, yes?
You obviously came in second in the "funny guy in our class" category, and have tried to grab center-stage ever since.

Guess what?
You're still so NOT funny.
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Von Mises said:
If I flip a coin 100 times and get heads 100 times, what´s the probability to get head the 101 time?

Your example is not about statistics or probability, it is about gravity.
Oh my how hilarious.

And yet the correct answer is once again: HEADS. The coin is not pure. This is why from a sufficiently big sample you should see a certain spread. If you see that spread there can be drawn conclusions.

You are really confused here because you want me to answer: The outcome of a coin toss is not predestined by an earlier coin toss. This is very true... but if we have a coin, toss it 100 times we certainly can guess what's most likely to happen unless it's really a pure coin. In your truely moronic example there can only be one answer. The fact that you do not understand this explains exactly why you can't analyze your way out of this.

Again, some people are just hilarious :D


What a fantastic strawman. Because what Franklin did... was mention several indisputable facts which have everything to do with doping. Franklin did not use pictures or the position of the sun. He used facts.

Strawmen, I despise them. But this was to be expected.
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
Franklin said:
The coin is not pure.
LOLz
A coin that isn't pure?
Try constructing a non-pure coin anywhich way you want and flip it with a large no. of rotations before it lands. You'll never get it loaded to the extent where you get anything other than extremely close to 50/50.
To quote: Putting extra weight on one side of the coin does not alter [significantly] the bias of a coin if it is flipped in the air and undergoes a large number of rotations along its axis.

Physics for Dummies!
 
Franklin said:
Oh my how hilarious.

And yet the correct answer is once again: HEADS. The coin is not pure. This is why from a sufficiently big sample you should see a certain spread. If you see that spread there can be drawn conclusions.
I'm sorry but this is horribly, horribly wrong. First, he is talking about a fair coin, you can't just make stuff up. Next, he asked the likelihood, not what it would be, so I'm assuming you mean that it is 100% likely to be heads. This is wrong, a fair coin will have a 50/50 chance of being a heads or a tails, it doesn't matter what goes before it. You may need to flip it 10,000 times to get an even spread, or 1,000,000 times or even more.

Empirical evidence can never prove anything completely.
 
airstream said:
I bet this circumstance would change NOTHING in this subforum. Any dominant rider would anyway be damned, called a joke, declared a mockery based on one's huge 20 year old sofa cycling experience lol etc etc etc...
If doping were indeed minimized with no oxygen vector doping, transfusions, and HGH, then there would be a number of different things.

A dominant rider would be dominant pretty much everywhere. The specialists would return reliably in a way we haven't seen since maybe the late 1970's. Grand tours would be a great deal slower and the third week of attacks would not look pretty.

That's just a little peek.
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
King Boonen said:
I'm sorry but this is horribly, horribly wrong. First, he is talking about a fair coin, you can't just make stuff up. Next, he asked the likelihood, not what it would be, so I'm assuming you mean that it is 100% likely to be heads. This is wrong, a fair coin will have a 50/50 chance of being a heads or a tails, it doesn't matter what goes before it. You may need to flip it 10,000 times to get an even spread, or 1,000,000 times or even more.

Empirical evidence can never prove anything completely.
This 100%. Some bizarre logic on display elsewhere
 
Jun 15, 2009
835
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If doping were indeed minimized with no oxygen vector doping, transfusions, and HGH, then there would be a number of different things.

A dominant rider would be dominant pretty much everywhere. The specialists would return reliably in a way we haven't seen since maybe the late 1970's. Grand tours would be a great deal slower and the third week of attacks would not look pretty.

That's just a little peek.
Well, EBH is as clean as they come, yet managed to lead Wiggo way up in the mountains last year, as well as being right up there for the sprints.
Quite frankly i'd expect a 1.9m rider at 69kgs to perform better than Edvald at 1.81m and 73kg in the mountains. Froome is 1.86 and 67-69kg. Go figure!
 
Originally Posted by King Boonen
I'm sorry but this is horribly, horribly wrong. First, he is talking about a fair coin, you can't just make stuff up. Next, he asked the likelihood, not what it would be, so I'm assuming you mean that it is 100% likely to be heads. This is wrong, a fair coin will have a 50/50 chance of being a heads or a tails, it doesn't matter what goes before it. You may need to flip it 10,000 times to get an even spread, or 1,000,000 times or even more.

Empirical evidence can never prove anything completely.

JimmyFingers said:
This 100%. Some bizarre logic on display elsewhere
LOL!

Think you two need to school up on the difference between 'chance' and 'probability'!

Oh deary deary me.
 
Oct 23, 2012
21
0
0
hektoren said:
LOLz
A coin that isn't pure?
Try constructing a non-pure coin anywhich way you want and flip it with a large no. of rotations before it lands. You'll never get it loaded to the extent where you get anything other than extremely close to 50/50.
To quote: Putting extra weight on one side of the coin does not alter [significantly] the bias of a coin if it is flipped in the air and undergoes a large number of rotations along its axis.

Physics for Dummies!
Seriously, if some street hustler just flipped a coin 100 times and got all heads, you would put your money on tails for flip 101? I would be wanting to inspect the double headed coin.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts