Well there was a time when people thought Armstrong was too big and powerful to ever go down. Same thing here. I think it will all come out at some point, sadly I think we first have to sit through this whole farce. But the day will come that something will happen that will put everything in motion. Man, if we would only know right now what that something or somebody would be.
- Jun 7, 2010
- 19,196
- 3,091
- 28,180
Re: Re:
So you are now looking at things that he might do, but haven't done yet.
Okay.
And you are moving the goalposts.
El Pistolero said:
So you are now looking at things that he might do, but haven't done yet.
Okay.
And you are moving the goalposts.
Re: Re:
Blind creepy hatred makes me support Froome. People following cycling with paranoid goal of hating Froome inspires me feel with him. As love/hate approach forces people to come to paradoxical conclusions. If it comes to Contador / Nibali, they are willing to notice all the positive things: talent, early success, tactical skills, will, ability to improvize, gutsy riding, panache. etc. etc. Notwithstanding when the talk about Froome is on, the same people prefer to see doping, lies, conspiracy theories. They don't fricking care that Froome demonstrates amazing will and ability. The whole rhetorics of 'we are OK guys, froome is not, so hating him is absolutely normal' is stupid, childish and fanboish IMO.
El Pistolero said:
Blind creepy hatred makes me support Froome. People following cycling with paranoid goal of hating Froome inspires me feel with him. As love/hate approach forces people to come to paradoxical conclusions. If it comes to Contador / Nibali, they are willing to notice all the positive things: talent, early success, tactical skills, will, ability to improvize, gutsy riding, panache. etc. etc. Notwithstanding when the talk about Froome is on, the same people prefer to see doping, lies, conspiracy theories. They don't fricking care that Froome demonstrates amazing will and ability. The whole rhetorics of 'we are OK guys, froome is not, so hating him is absolutely normal' is stupid, childish and fanboish IMO.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
Agreed, great post
Soggy Chamois said:argel said: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
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'.
Froome/Sky notes:
Bilharzia which uncharacteristically went undiagnosed and then not properly treated for considerable amount of time, making Froome an outlier in this area and not aligning with a team driven by marginal gains, rigorous sports science and close monitoring of their athletes
Froome’s inability to show much results-wise prior to August 2011, despite having supposed exceptional physiology
Being a considerable late bloomer with respect to most riders that go on to compete well in GC, making Froome an outlier in yet another area
Surprisingly low heart rate from data during intense mountain stages w/attacks, another outlier
Consistent message of marginal gains philosophy and ‘first to market’ suggestion about those activities, despite examples of not being pioneers in adopting some of those activities
Suggestions of laziness and lack of scientific approach by other teams, which is not true across the board
Financial details at odds with their main objectives of winning races with intense marginal gains focus, given the smaller proportion given to sports science etc vs marketing/PR and legal
At times matching/exceeding or very closely meeting climbing times from the clearly established ‘doped to the gills’ era of the late 90s/early 2000s
Message of desire to be transparent and open, with several examples of behavior to the contrary
Inability for Froome to remember his test data at all from 2007, despite likely being a very important test with regards to potential opportunities and doors it might open - I remember my V02max test from 2001 despite not having a career that might be impacted by its results
Initial inability to find 2007 test data
BMI mistake on the crude faxed 2007 test data
Use of a fast-tracked TUE to compete in a race, which Froome goes on to win, despite a significant illness. TUE fast-tracked by Mario Zorzoli – a UCI man with some questionable behavior over the years
Mario Zorzoli involved in the 2007 test data
Power data release that showed Froome with lower power output than competitor finishing behind him
Ignoring illegal feed rules on more than one occasion, showing examples of an organization not afraid to break the rules to help their cause…marginal gains on the wrong side of the rules
Hiring of Leinders despite ZTP and rather unbelievable position that organization was unaware of his doping past
Froome is a rider who manages to excel at mountains and time trails, such that he can challenge & often beat specialists recovering for and targeting those areas well into a grand tour
Rather surprising body fat percentage for a professional cyclist in 2007, making him an outlier in yet another area
Suggestion that he carries the fat internally, making Froome an outlier in yet another area
Ambiguity on Sky study of Henao and why it has never been published
Team that prides itself on marginal gains as previously mentioned, but has no idea what Froome’s weight is day-to-day, later interview with a Sky rider months after contradicts by revealing they are weighed regularly
Team that prides itself on marginal gains waits until 2013 before they bother getting Froome into a wind tunnel, a rather lazy approach for such a scientific team
Ability to completely transform riders from a track pedigree and/or those not previously showing much with respect to GC or climbing ability, into GC riders and/or super domestiques in the mountains
Ability to get consistency out of formerly inconsistent riders
Convincingly wins exceptionally hard athletic endeavors with a very clearly documented history of massive performance enhancing drug use to win them, in a sport that even today continues to have positive drug tests by even lowly back-markers/pack fodder
This list is of course not exhaustive, but rather a quick brainstorm of things I’ve heard/read/observed over the last while. Are any of these clear evidence of doping when taken one by one? No. Without a confession or positive test, we are of course left with debates in the Clinic that are really more about probabilities than certainties. So the question to me is “In light of the information we have available, what is the probability that Chris Froome and/or Sky are clean or doping?”
In my mind, to believe that Chris Froome and/or Sky are not doping requires a very large leap of faith. Another non-exhaustive list captures some of that leap:
It requires believing that this team and this rider are exceptional, not just in a few ways, but in a surprisingly large number of ways relative to even their exceptional competition.
It requires turning a blind eye to their difficulties in adhering to and/or willfully breaking some of their own policies and other sporting rules.
It requires a belief that the team truly executes on a significantly different level than other teams around it, with respect to attention to detail/marginal gains, while clearly demonstrating some significant behaviours to the contrary.
It requires a belief that anti-doping is effective and non-corrupt.
It requires believing that somehow, in the world of professional sports – clearly demonstrated to be riddled with doping regardless of the sport - that cycling is somehow different and can have its highest level competitions won clean.
It requires believing that a suggested stricter adherence to sports science will somehow prevail against sports science combined with pharmaceutical enhancement. I encourage you to look at Jan Ulrich’s doping schedule for the first week of the Tour De France in 2006, as revealed in the Puerto case. Imagine a clean rider with the same training program racing against a rider with that kind of pharmaceutical advantage – what’s the likelihood that clean rider could compete with the doped rider? What do you think the benefit of that type of doping program is in percent vs clean, all other things being equal? 2%? 5%? 10%....what about 15%? Now imagine a training program for the clean rider that pays attention to small details like pineapple juice, pillows, personal washing machines, cooling down post races, not bothering to take riders of significant potential into the wind tunnel. What do you think the percentage gain is from that approach?
Finally, it requires believing despite cycling’s sordid history with performance enhancement, that someone can win convincingly its biggest race (among others) – multiple times, without using some type of doping.
I believe it is the magnitude of this leap of faith that makes it difficult to find many in the Clinic willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Agreed, great post
Froome showing he probably could have won this by 10mins, when he had a what, 30+ second gain on Dumoulin between two of the intermediate timing spots? He's still intentionally riding easy and not aggressive on ascents has prevented him getting abuse and a golden shower, so it's hard to blame the lad for his apparent deception. The question is whether, as in previous years he'll let others win on the last climb of the tour and get "dropped" whilst at no point having his lead in any danger whatsoever.
Re: Re:
You are not reading the full posts then. You are making ignorant statements made to belittle instead of looking at the myriad of examples that are given of Froome's otherworldly performances that are just not believable. It's not hatred but some get exasperated and say harsh things.
dacooley said:
You are not reading the full posts then. You are making ignorant statements made to belittle instead of looking at the myriad of examples that are given of Froome's otherworldly performances that are just not believable. It's not hatred but some get exasperated and say harsh things.
- May 9, 2014
- 5,229
- 107
- 17,680
markene2 said:
Except Froome and Porte appear to be too close for Porte to snake
As someone posted earlier, Cound might be the best bet, or some mechanic who happens to come across something while working his/her shift and selling it to the papers
Re: Re:
this is great. I think we can add to this list though. Some other things off the top of my head
- Paul Kimmage's invite to be embedded with sky for the 2013 tour only to have it revoked (supposedly at the request of sir bradlee) the day before it started.
- As well as hiring dodgy doctors, hiring of coaches with a dirty/dubious past
- clear signs their 'marginal gains' are basically them making things up as they go along. For example, l'il Riche's motor home. And, the marginal gains they have chosen to share information about being patently ridiculously not new or unique (pillows, warm-downs, pineapple juice, etc).
- Sean Yate's comments about Sky on his departure - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-defends-armstrong-but-is-critical-of-team-sky/ - which I'd tend to believe, shows they hadn't a clue about cycling. Some of those there in his time, including king Dave, are still there. King Dave, clueless and all as he is, still crushes the collective might of far more experienced DS's throughout professional cycling.
- Sky's absence from, and their attitude to, the MPCC. Regardless of what one thinks about the organisation, if Sky had nothing to hide, whats to lose?
- Sky's pathetic attempts at PR via David Walsh, who has a clear conflict of interest, and who continually contradicts arguments he's made in the past about Lance/USPS, when similar questions are posed of Sky. And his sudden about turns on the likes of Landa/Astana.
Any more?
Soggy Chamois said:
this is great. I think we can add to this list though. Some other things off the top of my head
- Paul Kimmage's invite to be embedded with sky for the 2013 tour only to have it revoked (supposedly at the request of sir bradlee) the day before it started.
- As well as hiring dodgy doctors, hiring of coaches with a dirty/dubious past
- clear signs their 'marginal gains' are basically them making things up as they go along. For example, l'il Riche's motor home. And, the marginal gains they have chosen to share information about being patently ridiculously not new or unique (pillows, warm-downs, pineapple juice, etc).
- Sean Yate's comments about Sky on his departure - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/yates-defends-armstrong-but-is-critical-of-team-sky/ - which I'd tend to believe, shows they hadn't a clue about cycling. Some of those there in his time, including king Dave, are still there. King Dave, clueless and all as he is, still crushes the collective might of far more experienced DS's throughout professional cycling.
- Sky's absence from, and their attitude to, the MPCC. Regardless of what one thinks about the organisation, if Sky had nothing to hide, whats to lose?
- Sky's pathetic attempts at PR via David Walsh, who has a clear conflict of interest, and who continually contradicts arguments he's made in the past about Lance/USPS, when similar questions are posed of Sky. And his sudden about turns on the likes of Landa/Astana.
Any more?
- May 9, 2014
- 5,229
- 107
- 17,680
Re: Re:
No I haven't, but Froome clearly wasn't on the right stuff even if he was doping pre-2011. Is that really any better than a Contador Nibali or Boonen being on the right stuff since their teens and hence not doping as blatantly as Froome?
And even if Sky have some next level stuff that nobody else has access to, I really don't see the difference between someone deciding to cheat using a small amount of ACTH for example, and going full *** with EPO, HGH, Cortisone Testosterone and everything else under the Sun. Once you've decided to cross the line, you're no better morally than any other doper, no matter how much you're doping. At this point, the differences between the lowkey doper and the biological experiment are not particularly different to one cyclist drinking coke and beer when thirsty while the other drinks water and energy drinks etc
At least that's my opinion on it.
Which is why I put pretty much ignore clinic issues with every cyclist before picking my favourites based on riding style etc
And who do you think isn't doping?
El Pistolero said:
No I haven't, but Froome clearly wasn't on the right stuff even if he was doping pre-2011. Is that really any better than a Contador Nibali or Boonen being on the right stuff since their teens and hence not doping as blatantly as Froome?
And even if Sky have some next level stuff that nobody else has access to, I really don't see the difference between someone deciding to cheat using a small amount of ACTH for example, and going full *** with EPO, HGH, Cortisone Testosterone and everything else under the Sun. Once you've decided to cross the line, you're no better morally than any other doper, no matter how much you're doping. At this point, the differences between the lowkey doper and the biological experiment are not particularly different to one cyclist drinking coke and beer when thirsty while the other drinks water and energy drinks etc
At least that's my opinion on it.
Which is why I put pretty much ignore clinic issues with every cyclist before picking my favourites based on riding style etc
And who do you think isn't doping?
^adding to the list
Sky's incestuous links with British Cycling, a body which seems institutionally flawed and quite possibly seriously corrupt.
Sky's incestuous links with British Cycling, a body which seems institutionally flawed and quite possibly seriously corrupt.
- Aug 11, 2012
- 2,621
- 24
- 11,530
- Sep 26, 2009
- 2,848
- 1
- 11,485
- Apr 3, 2016
- 1,508
- 0
- 0
86TDFWinner said:
That pretty much aligns with my thinking.
I'm not that bothered by Sky's doping, because I think everyone is. A line is crossed, does it matter if different people are in slightly different positions on the wrong side of that line? They are all cheats.
My position is actually a lazy position to hold. It makes viewing sort of ok. I'd be far more troubled if I thought some riders were clean.
I'm guessing that somebody like Benotti might feel the same.
- Jul 16, 2010
- 17,455
- 5
- 0
Re: Re:
How do you know Boonen and Nibali were using doping in there teens, while they were already getting great results? Maybe, just maybe, they actually do have a lot of talent. If Froome was a once-in-a-generation talent we'd have seen it before 2011, doping or not. I don't need to think anyone is clean, but I do know the world isn't black and white and it's statistically very unlikely that the entire peloton is doping. Who's clean and who's dirty? I don't know. I do know that Froome is one of the most dubious athletes in the history of sport.
For Froome's results of today to be consistent with his past, he should have shown Sagan-like results in his early teens. Instead we have a guy that got thrown out of the Giro for hanging onto a motorbike because the climb was too hard for him.
You don't see me hating on Adam Yates because he at least has shown promise early on. Does that mean I think he's clean? No, I don't know that, only he and his entourage does. But at least he always showed a lot of talent.
I find it hard to believe there are many 14 year olds using forbidden substances already. Maybe some parents are crazy enough to pressure their children into doping, but I doubt it's the majority. I was a decent athlete in my country at that age and I never came into contact with doping.
PremierAndrew said:
How do you know Boonen and Nibali were using doping in there teens, while they were already getting great results? Maybe, just maybe, they actually do have a lot of talent. If Froome was a once-in-a-generation talent we'd have seen it before 2011, doping or not. I don't need to think anyone is clean, but I do know the world isn't black and white and it's statistically very unlikely that the entire peloton is doping. Who's clean and who's dirty? I don't know. I do know that Froome is one of the most dubious athletes in the history of sport.
For Froome's results of today to be consistent with his past, he should have shown Sagan-like results in his early teens. Instead we have a guy that got thrown out of the Giro for hanging onto a motorbike because the climb was too hard for him.
You don't see me hating on Adam Yates because he at least has shown promise early on. Does that mean I think he's clean? No, I don't know that, only he and his entourage does. But at least he always showed a lot of talent.
I find it hard to believe there are many 14 year olds using forbidden substances already. Maybe some parents are crazy enough to pressure their children into doping, but I doubt it's the majority. I was a decent athlete in my country at that age and I never came into contact with doping.
Re: Re:
And what results did you expect Froome to get as a teen in the cycling countries of Kenya and South Africa? He was one of the best of his age group in those countries that's as good as it can get. Let's not forget Alberto barely won a race as a teen does that make him suspicious? Definitly not neither froome or alberto are any more suspicous than people who won as youngsters like Valverde.El Pistolero said:
- May 26, 2009
- 4,114
- 0
- 0
Re: Re:
He was? I'm sure I saw some results where he was dropped by the peloton and if other cases just finishing in the peloton. Where are these riders who were beating Froome in RSA races?
If Froome can come to Europe and make the world's best look like a bunch of club riders on a coffee run, why aren't these other South African riders coming over to make easy $$$$$$$?
Ramon Koran said:
He was? I'm sure I saw some results where he was dropped by the peloton and if other cases just finishing in the peloton. Where are these riders who were beating Froome in RSA races?
If Froome can come to Europe and make the world's best look like a bunch of club riders on a coffee run, why aren't these other South African riders coming over to make easy $$$$$$$?
- Jul 16, 2010
- 17,455
- 5
- 0
Re: Re:
Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.
Ramon Koran said:
Contador's nickname was Pantani in the youth categories... Please don't use Kenya or South Africa as an excuse for his arrested development. He wasn't some poor kid living in the backwoods.
- May 23, 2009
- 10,245
- 1,436
- 25,680
Re: Re:
For the record - they were CR@P for someone looking to make a career on the bike.
Buddy, Froome's early results in South Africa have been discussed several times ad nauseum in this forum. I think you've been around for this at least once.Ramon Koran said:
For the record - they were CR@P for someone looking to make a career on the bike.
Enrico Gimondi said:
This is a stupid argument.
1) Sky, News Corp and Murdoch have many enemies in the media. The likes of Dacre, the BBC, The Guardian and others would LOVE to take News Corp down by association. The motive is very much there for them to do so.
2) The second they hounded a reporter or intimated that they might be on to something, the game would be up. It'd be leaked via 'anonymous sources' around the peloton and cycling fraternity and then to the mainstream media that Sky were trying to deter people getting too close and it'd be obvious that they had a major scandal just waiting to be blown open.
3) Do you honestly believe that BSKYB/News Corp as companies (as much as I hate them and Murdoch) would sanction an attempt to systemically dope their OWN BRAND team to the top of a minor sport? The image damage it would do if they were caught would be way beyond any rewards they could make and last for decades. Sports are a massive part of the Sky TV brand, yet here would be them losing all credibility in that field by cheating a sport. It would open them up to yet more parliamentary scrutiny and likely be used against them in future business deals.
I just think some of you are thick and don't actually consider how difficult or problematic this would be for Sky if they were caught. In which case, if the plan was always to dope their way to the top, and it's known among the upper hierarchy of BSKYB, why would they have put their name on the team in the first place? Everybody knows that sooner or later, all doping scandals come out. It doesn't matter who backs you, who covers for you, eventually either you stop paying people enough to keep it secret, or someone grows a conscience and goes to the press with an anonymous or on-the-record tip off.
Those comparing Froome to Lance are just ignoring the huge amount of legitimate evidence and scandal that had built up around Armstrong throughout his career, even at the start. It's just selectively taking the on-the-road comparison, yet dismissing the off-the-bike stuff that had people hounding his every move by 03.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 31K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 32K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 12K
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tour de France 2025 route rumours and announcements- Latest: Armchair Cyclist
-
-
Teams & Riders Fausto Masnada - 'King of the Mountains'- Latest: Ilmaestro99
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram