Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 92 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I think every rider with GC intentions plans to win. No one plans to come second or third (unless they're supporting the eventual winner).

I just think if it's that obvious, why aren't other teams doing it? All we hear is talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and how Froome is a crap rider with no history. Are people saying the rest of the peloton is clean, and only Sky is not?
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
doolols said:
I think every rider with GC intentions plans to win. No one plans to come second or third (unless they're supporting the eventual winner).

I just think if it's that obvious, why aren't other teams doing it? All we hear is talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and how Froome is a crap rider with no history. Are people saying the rest of the peloton is clean, and only Sky is not?
It does care few people in the thread. The others are blinded with hatred and their giant sofa fan experience, using which they allegedly alway can distinguish a strong rider and a 'joke'. Strictly speaking, their arguments from San Luca stage to seach of discrepancies in Froome's words many years ago, don't hold water.

Young rider overrated himself and couldn't choose a proper gear for a short 20+% section. Undoubtedly, it's a life sentence and shows his absolute obtuseness like a climber! :D Oh yeah. Guys, you are so funny..
 
doolols said:
Really? They're obvious, are they? There have been so many performances from Sky this year which have not been abnormal, but those tend to get overlooked. The only thing the clinic fixates on is the performances for which they have planned and trained for months. If it's that simple i.e. dope, and you can dominate certain races, why don't other teams do this? How come other riders get caught doping, and yet Sky can dominate, despite other well-funded and well-connected teams in the peloton?

Still waiting for Pat to lever a positive from the British team to discredit Cookson. He must be pulling his hair out.
Froome planned and trained for months for Oman? Critérium International? Romandie?

I could believe you if you said Tirreno (much was made of that in the pre-season), but that's the only one he didn't win. Dauphiné? Well, that's an essential part of Tour prep, being strong there is often a byproduct of the training for the Tour. It used to mean you were peaking too early before Sky unlocked the secret of omnipeaking.

To paraphrase you, if it's so simple that you can ride clean and dominate certain races in the hypercontrolled form previously only seen from the shadiest of the shady teams... then surely any team could theoretically do it? So why are Sky the only ones? Because the péloton isn't clean, is it - we're still seeing positives, and often from people who manage transformations similar to those seen - repeatedly - at Sky - so surely if they're clean, Sky have unlocked some hitherto unknown training method or device that enables them to make enormous and sudden strides and to maintain peaks for the kinds of lengths of time that haven't been seen in decades. In which case there's always the possibility that they are doing something unusual but not illegal, hence they tell us of their commitment to cleanliness and transparency, but show us nothing, as they don't want to see their advantages go up in smoke.

That might mean doping (for example, when Johann Mühlegg - still the best analogue for Froome I can find in terms of performance relative to field, jump in performance and dominance despite technique since he tripped over his own feet partway through his gold medal performances - tested positive, it was for darbopoietin, which at the time was so new it hadn't been banned yet) or it might mean another behind-closed-doors training mechanism that doesn't involve performance enhancing substances or transfusions but may be considered controversial. But what has gone on at Sky is most definitely 'not normal'.
 
doolols said:
I think every rider with GC intentions plans to win. No one plans to come second or third (unless they're supporting the eventual winner).

I just think if it's that obvious, why aren't other teams doing it? All we hear is talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and how Froome is a crap rider with no history. Are people saying the rest of the peloton is clean, and only Sky is not?
The same thing could be said about the original postal.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
To paraphrase you, if it's so simple that you can ride clean and dominate certain races in the hypercontrolled form previously only seen from the shadiest of the shady teams... then surely any team could theoretically do it? So why are Sky the only ones?
Are they though? There have been four oustanding riders on Sky this year, Froome, Porte, Henao and Uran. And I think you'll agree that the latter two's results have not been especially suspicious and inconsistent with previous performance levels.
 
Miburo said:
I think many don't care anymore expect if it's really obvious and makes the races boring, like sky of course.

If we had for example a battle between AS and AC i don't think many would complain about them possibly doping. Make it exciting and people won't mind that much but don't make it boring. Best example

You may speak for a few idiots with this but certainly not for me and many others.

It's one thing to cheer for a rider you think is doping. Imo more honest than claiming all riders you like (often your nationality) are clean.

It's another to say doping is not as bad if done by riders you like.

The difference between schleck and sky is not that 1 allegedly attacks (once a year). It's that sky claim to have reinvented the sport and demand credit for anti doping efforts they claim to have done but never actually bothered with.
 
spalco said:
Are they though? There have been four oustanding riders on Sky this year, Froome, Porte, Henao and Uran. And I think you'll agree that the latter two's results have not been especially suspicious and inconsistent with previous performance levels.
But over the course of the last few years we've had Froome, Wiggins and Porte all transform to various extents (Porte the least, Froome the most, in relation to previous levels). The domestiques they've brought in have often improved in level (while guys like Kiryienka have not done anything they weren't previously doing, guys like López have improved their level noticeably, and guys like Rogers putting out career best numbers is a massive point to take). Over the same period of time, we have seen very few transformations from riders on other teams from riders with an established body of work in the World Tour (i.e. not guys like Quintana, Sagan or Moser, who belong with Henao and Urán in the 'not inconsistent with expectations' files), and those few we have seen have been ones like Santambrogio, which ended up in precisely the way we anticipated it would.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
The Hitch said:
You may speak for a few idiots with this but certainly not for me and many others.

It's one thing to cheer for a rider you think is doping. Imo more honest than claiming all riders you like (often your nationality) are clean.

It's another to say doping is not as bad if done by riders you like.

The difference between schleck and sky is not that 1 allegedly attacks (once a year). It's that sky claim to have reinvented the sport and demand credit for anti doping efforts they claim to have done but never actually bothered with.
What i meant is that many think all of them are doping but i see your point. Not my best post.
 
doolols said:
Really? They're obvious, are they? There have been so many performances from Sky this year which have not been abnormal, but those tend to get overlooked.
Lol. Aren't you the guy who said froome can't have been doped on the dauphine mtf he won because he only beat busche by 4 seconds (he had been in the break)

This is not a much better attempt at logic. No doper has ever won everything. Just today people were talking about how vino sucked in the first mtf of the vuelta before destroying all.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
But over the course of the last few years we've had Froome, Wiggins and Porte all transform to various extents (Porte the least, Froome the most, in relation to previous levels). The domestiques they've brought in have often improved in level (while guys like Kiryienka have not done anything they weren't previously doing, guys like López have improved their level noticeably, and guys like Rogers putting out career best numbers is a massive point to take). Over the same period of time, we have seen very few transformations from riders on other teams from riders with an established body of work in the World Tour (i.e. not guys like Quintana, Sagan or Moser, who belong with Henao and Urán in the 'not inconsistent with expectations' files), and those few we have seen have been ones like Santambrogio, which ended up in precisely the way we anticipated it would.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree (I don't really know how to judge the performances of guys like Lopez, Kiriyenka or Rogers, maybe I'm not paying enough attention), but there aren't that many riders who actually win races on Sky, it's a rather select group. Which is the reason I'm not fully on board with the "Sky domination" thing.
 
spalco said:
I understand what you're saying, and I don't necessarily disagree (I don't really know how to judge the performances of guys like Lopez, Kiriyenka or Rogers, maybe I'm not paying enough attention), but there aren't that many riders who actually win races on Sky, it's a rather select group. Which is the reason I'm not fully on board with the "Sky domination" thing.
Wasn't it also a select group on the original Postal?
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Netserk said:
He got caught because he ****ed up his doping :rolleyes:
Vino was desperate. Was the favourite to win the Tour. Probably would have been second or first had he not fallen.

Stitches everywhere, all hope failing, he acted foolishly. Vino getting caught was something I always understood. Didn't get popped for autologous blood doping, but homolgous. Made a lot of sense. Desperation.
 
goggalor said:
Another thing is that everyone working in or reporting on cycling refuses to accept that there's any chance that Sky are doping. In fact, they keep calling Sky a clean team, despite the obviously doped up performances we're seeing year round from UK Postal. It's just frustrating.
Sport is all about performance, when it comes to doping you have to have more evidence that just performance. If your suspicious of everyone who performs well without other forms of strong evidence than frankly I pity you.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MatParker117 said:
Sport is all about performance, when it comes to doping you have to have more evidence that just performance. If your suspicious of everyone who performs well without other forms of strong evidence than frankly I pity you.
The evidence is there, doping doctor, doping DSs, doping riders. ;)
 
Libertine Seguros said:
But over the course of the last few years we've had Froome, Wiggins and Porte all transform to various extents (Porte the least, Froome the most, in relation to previous levels). The domestiques they've brought in have often improved in level (while guys like Kiryienka have not done anything they weren't previously doing, guys like López have improved their level noticeably, .
DLG was already this good in his breakthrough at Abarca?
 
Libertine Seguros said:
But over the course of the last few years we've had Froome, Wiggins and Porte all transform to various extents (Porte the least, Froome the most, in relation to previous levels). The domestiques they've brought in have often improved in level (while guys like Kiryienka have not done anything they weren't previously doing, guys like López have improved their level noticeably, and guys like Rogers putting out career best numbers is a massive point to take). Over the same period of time, we have seen very few transformations from riders on other teams from riders with an established body of work in the World Tour (i.e. not guys like Quintana, Sagan or Moser, who belong with Henao and Urán in the 'not inconsistent with expectations' files), and those few we have seen have been ones like Santambrogio, which ended up in precisely the way we anticipated it would.
What about EBH? I remember he was leading the Sky train in some mountain stages last year in TdF. Is this considered normal?
 
Aug 1, 2012
180
0
0
Has anyone ever seen a copy of Sky's zero-tolerance anti-doping agreement that all team members are required to sign? What is the exact wording?

If you read Froome's quoted words, he seems to be speaking more like someone edited by a solicitor.

The smart money in doping is being spent on science that hasn't yet appeared on WADA's radar.
 
The zero tolerance anti-doping agreement is just a piece of paper. Don't attach too much importance to it. There was a team that had those pieces of paper two or three years before Sky, to ensure that not only did riders not dope, but they didn't do anything else that could bring the team's reputation into disrepute. A few guys had issues with signing it because its wording was too vague, including somebody who now rides for Sky. That team was Катюша. The quiet jettisoning of Mick Rogers under cover of night is more meaningful when attesting Sky's commitment to clean cycling than instigating the compulsory signing of a bland declaration.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
The zero tolerance anti-doping agreement is just a piece of paper. Don't attach too much importance to it. There was a team that had those pieces of paper two or three years before Sky, to ensure that not only did riders not dope, but they didn't do anything else that could bring the team's reputation into disrepute. A few guys had issues with signing it because its wording was too vague, including somebody who now rides for Sky. That team was Катюша. The quiet jettisoning of Mick Rogers under cover of night is more meaningful when attesting Sky's commitment to clean cycling than instigating the compulsory signing of a bland declaration.
but the paper was important in marketing. belief and perception by the new fans. it may, as you correctly infer, about use much material value as the bathroom toilet paper, but for PR, quite invaluable!
 
Heckler said:
Has anyone ever seen a copy of Sky's zero-tolerance anti-doping agreement that all team members are required to sign? What is the exact wording?

If you read Froome's quoted words, he seems to be speaking more like someone edited by a solicitor.

The smart money in doping is being spent on science that hasn't yet appeared on WADA's radar.
Has anyone seen the zero tolerance policy full stop?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY