Benotti69 said:
argel said:
Poursuivant said:
Anyone see when Froome scratched his arm when there was only 15 left in the group? He is laughing at us. And did anyone notice loads of the riders where sky riders even though everyone knew before the Tour even started they had an incredibly strong team for the climbs. But it is Still Clear evidence he is doped to the gills and that Sky are buzzing off us etc.
PS Porte was smiling all the way up the climb, Brailsford zoomed off into hyperspace and Poels was reading War and Peace as Froome in his sandal shoes dropped exceptionally renowned climbers like Adam Yates by 9 seconds, lol rofl lmao, this is a farce etc.
Of all the tinfoil hat stuff on here, this is by far the worst. I read posts like this on every page and it undermines everything people say that is grounded in legit concern by picking up tiny details and blowing them up into 'OMG THEY ARE SO BLATANTLY LAUGHING AT US, I SAW FROOME POST IN THE CLINIC WHILE RIDING UP VENTOUX IN 2013' style rubbish.
I'll defend Froome in the sense that I have an open mind that he might be legit. I think it's hard to have an open mind on here because you're immediately dismissed as a fanboi (I hate Sky, I hate what they're doing to the front of the race, I just don't necessarily think it's as a result of systemic illegality) regardless. A few days ago in this thread, someone (the same poster) said both of these things:
'At least the skeptics are reasonable and concede when valid points are made'
and
'no reasonable person can say that Froome is not doping'
That type of contradictory 'we're the reasonable ones but only if you agree with us' is why the clinic is treated like what it is, a paranoid group of (rightly) embittered former cycling fans who now accuse every rider who wins of illegality.
For Froome to 'might be legit', needs for lots of things to be in his favour against what is pointing towards doping and cheating.
Can you point to those things, that might mean Froome is legit?
I mean he is beating a lot of known dopers and doping teams whose doctors are well known to have worked with dirty teams in the past.
IMO Froome is more obvious a cheat than Armstrong. Armstrong was a world champ at 21.
No, because what is the point? I can point to his lack of a doping record and you'd say Lance didn't fail anything (even though that's not true). I could say that it'd be hard to maintain such a systemic doping regimen under the eyes of a suspicious media, and you'd say that Murdoch and the UCI are covering up (even though Murdoch owns 39% of sky, and many other broadcasters would love to take both sky and him down through association with doping).
I could point to the fact no whistleblower has emerged in 6 years, and you'd say that there was too much financial incentive for them to stay silent (even though the same was true for USP and there were many prepared to do so throughout the early 00's). I could say that Brailsford has a pedigree and no history of doping, and you'd say that he just hasn't been caught yet and scoff at the idea of marginal gains (despite quite clearly having a pattern of success with that philosophy throughout his career and having far more to lose (financially and legally) by doping now than anyone else).
In the end, you want another Lance. That's fine, but I was a heavy Lance skeptic. He had a doping doctor, an obnoxious personality (Bassons), and in an era of mass doping was a cut above.
Froome is what he is. I don't think he's 'normal' physiologically, but he isn't Lance. People here are clutching at straws, like the 'scratching' thing as if that proves he's a bad, arrogant guy like Lance and is flaunting his arrogance. Come on, he's a weird, colonial guy who is a bit socially inept, but scratching yourself doth not an egotistical maniac make.
Also it's naive to think that him beating 'known dopers' you refer to like Contador and Valverde is a big flashing red light. They're obviously both well past their peak. If Quintana, Yates and Martin were all doping, and he'd beaten them, it'd be comparable. Beating people who doped years ago and are way into the twilight of their careers (Valverde is 36
) is not evidence.
I think that condemning Froome entirely, and refusing to acknowledge that there is a big fat fundamental lack of serious evidence, either eyewitness or testing to him having doped, is undermining the case against him. There's not an open mind about him on here, and people try to shut down the 'fanbois' without considering that sky have money doped this race to a point where it is a farce. Being able to field Henao, Nieve, Poels and the like and waste them as domestiques is what is destroying this race. All of them should be working towards team leadership and GC placing, but instead they're burying themselves for money.
I'd do it too, but it's massively ruined the sport as a spectacle. That's the thing I agree with most, but I just want the firm evidence that Froome is doping before I condemn him. Not 'he's beating 36yr old Alejandro Valverde, who doped a few years ago'.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram