Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

irrational dislike incoming from majority fans for sure is the best yardstick which perfectly illustrates why froome shouldn't be on top of grand tour cycling. the hitch, just a question, who would you prefer to see a tour winner or multiple tour winner instead of froome and why other candidate staying on top would be more fair and likeable?

you know the hitch always thought of froome as a gentleman, then the agenda kicked in

attack the argument not the man.
doh

 

[Irondan]

Re:

In the words of Brodeal. This forum sucks.

Yeah, it's the forum's fault....

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

irrational dislike incoming from majority fans for sure is the best yardstick which perfectly illustrates why froome shouldn't be on top of grand tour cycling. the hitch, just a question, who would you prefer to see a tour winner or multiple tour winner instead of froome and why other candidate staying on top would be more fair and likeable?

but not clean anyway ^^

anti-brit bias aside. is "the most incredible donkey to racehorse" stuff, about Froome, somehow related to the how the people perceive what should be fair or not?

is that thing choking in the followers throats every time they see Froome, because it is not "allowed"?

because ok gimme Boonen or Alberto and I will close eyes and ears and WANT to support them, while seeing Froome do the same it touches the "truth" alarm and also involves the thought of Alberto and Boonen and Nibali and all the others cause it is clear they dope too?

is Froome madness also ringing a bell for everyone? and that means people really understand they support dopers too, while before they pretended they didnt see? does it make clear that everyone choses his favourite doper?
before they pretended it was normal, it was the old euro doping tradition?

are we seeing the pesky brits doing what they werent supposed to do, go berzerk, win the Tours, and shake the old status quo where the old nations did the same but it was always so and it was fine?

Maube you should just answer your own questions.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

so in other words you're making it up as you go along....as we all thought

Nope, "we all" don't think that. Probably just you if I'm going to speculate.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

...who would you prefer to see a tour winner or multiple tour winner instead of froome and why other candidate staying on top would be more fair and likeable?

Anyone.

More fair? I don't know about that. All told, he's the most absurd rider I've ever witnessed, and I've been watching since about 1976. More likable? Anyone. His riding "style" is the worst I've seen since Escartin at least––it's an offense to the sport and the word style. I don't care for his public persona, but I'm not going to beat him up about that. His transformation is top 3 comical of all time. Can't decide if him or his former teammate are the worst. His team's claims of transparency and innovation, as well as his transformation story are an insult to the intelligence of anyone within earshot.

I'll even root for Porte over Froome.

The Tour is losing a lot of its appeal with this clown car at the top. I realize we're relegated to watching cheats most of the time, but FFS, do it with some style and intelligence, and some respect for the sport and the fans.

All the above? Take the opposite and see why I root for Contador, though clearly he's past it. That dude has style and panache.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

irrational dislike incoming from majority fans for sure is the best yardstick which perfectly illustrates why froome shouldn't be on top of grand tour cycling. the hitch, just a question, who would you prefer to see a tour winner or multiple tour winner instead of froome and why other candidate staying on top would be more fair and likeable?

you know the hitch always thought of froome as a gentleman, then the agenda kicked in

attack the argument not the man.
doh

how do you see it possible while the anti-doping agenda Sky stick to and sky fans camp believing it wholeheartedly piss off all non-believers and haters WAY more than the fact of Froome obviously using perfomance-enhancing drugs itself?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

indeed that's why this thread has been bumped, no interest in cycling, just mud throwing...if only it would stick

So by your logic Indurain and Carl Lewis were both 100% clean?

And btw i remind you that 80% of people in europe are convinced Froome is doping, so depends on your definition of mud sticking.

Cookson the big bad bogey man LOL


keep living the dream because thast all some of you have

Are you living the dream though? Vicariously through Froome. a mentally unstable stick insect who despite dominating a sport for 5 years is disliked by the majority of fans within it, to the extent that according to his own team, he can't ride a race without having piss thrown at him/ beer thrown at him/ having his cars attacked/ being booed on the podium etc.

Some dream you are living.

I don't think "despite" is the right word there. People who dominate are often the most hated.

Are you sure about that?

If sports stars were widely hated would companies throw millions at them do advertise products and associate their names with the brand? rhetorical question. Ironically of all Europe's sporting stars Froome (who as a TDF winner should be more famous) is one which gets very little in the way of advertising campaigns.

Look at how much some of these people make from endorsements: https://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tabverall_header:endorsements_sortreverse:true

hated?

You think Roger Federer is widely hated? Or Nadal? quite the contrary. Ronaldo and Messi? Ive seen Messi in some school in London visiting and every child rushed to just get a glimpse. Usain Bolt? Michael Jordan is still making money off his success 20 + years ago.

I don't think youd ever have crowds boo these people.

You just cannot, ever, compare basketball, fotoball or tennis players with cyclists.

I can and am.
You said "People who dominate are often the most hated"

You didn't say "People who dominate are often the most hated, but only in cycling and not in all other sports".

Cycling stars used to be bigger. Before it unfairly got the reputation as - that sport where everyone just dopes.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

And btw i remind you that 80% of people in europe are convinced Froome is doping

Can you prove your claim?

despite dominating a sport for 5 years is disliked by the majority of fans within it

Can you prove your claim?

1- a Danish newspaper did a poll of whether froome dopes or not. 80% said yes. Maybe its not 80% accross Europe but the reaction is generally sceptical everywhere outside of the UK (eg Walsh gets very negative reactions on off the ball), some commentators openly accuse him of doping etc.

2 - Well if Froome has piss thrown at him/ is booed/ persecuted etc then he does seem pretty disliked.

Of course you are right that we should doubt that froome ever had piss thrown at him since Sky are serial liars and have always tried to make up stories and fabricate sympathy for Froome.But assuming its true, he's hardly Mr popular

so in other words you're making it up as you go along....as we all thought

No. 80% of Danish fans polled said they believe Froome is doping.

I didn't make it up, it happened, and it backed up what we all knew and what all the evidence shows - no one in the world, outside of Dave Brailsford's christmas card list, believes for a second Froome is anything other than doped.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

wow the July crowd have arrived just in time!
Welcome

indeed that's why this thread has been bumped, no interest in cycling, just mud throwing...if only it would stick

So by your logic Indurain and Carl Lewis were both 100% clean?

And btw i remind you that 80% of people in europe are convinced Froome is doping, so depends on your definition of mud sticking.

Cookson the big bad bogey man LOL


keep living the dream because thast all some of you have

Are you living the dream though? Vicariously through Froome. a mentally unstable stick insect who despite dominating a sport for 5 years is disliked by the majority of fans within it, to the extent that according to his own team, he can't ride a race without having piss thrown at him/ beer thrown at him/ having his cars attacked/ being booed on the podium etc.

Some dream you are living.

I think it unlikely 80% of people in Europe have even heard of Chris Froome, or at least if they have they have almost no knowledge of cycling, or its history in regards to doping.
You got anything to back the statement up? Just asking again because you blatantly ignored the previous question re this and provided some evidence that in no way backed up you claim.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Barring a crash and team orders, we could be looking at a rider going for his 6th tour in a row and for that he should be lauded as possibly the greatest cyclist of all time and one of the worlds most famous athletes.

Remember when after Lance got caught wiggins said something like - you know im clean because unlike lance i only won 1 tour de france not 7.

And yet the same people who thought that was a good argument, also now think there is nothing suspicious about Froome's continued domination.

Kind of how like it was ok for wiggins to lose weight to get good at tts, and win them, then the next year he had to gain weight to improve his tts.

Or attacks were bad at the tour de france in 2012 and wiggins was clean because he didn't attack, but then froome started doing Armstrong sestrieres impressions and that was good too.

But all of this is to be ignored because "haters have an agenda" (though never specified what exactly) thereby disqualifying all the logic against froome

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

how do you see it possible while the anti-doping agenda Sky stick to and sky fans camp believing it wholeheartedly piss off all non-believers and haters WAY more than the fact of Froome obviously using perfomance-enhancing drugs itself?

ehhe, that´s why this thread is always fun

 

[The Hegelian]

I'll speak as an ex-hater: it was a combination of A/ his ridiculous rise, B/ his horrible on-bike aesthetics, C/ his crushingly powerful team (representing Murdoch) and D/ his actual method of number crunching to smash the finale of a climb with alien wattage.

Quite a lot to hate there.

But I'm past it. A and C remain, B has got better and he has become an interesting and well rounded rider now - attacking on the flats with Sagan, in yellow? Kudos is warranted, he ain't the one trick pony he was. He's grown into something quite different to what he was.

In my view, there is something irrational about the hate. Of course - what else could it be. Can you have hate grounded in reason?

I think the relevant analogy is Valverde. When he came back from his ban, he was widely reviled. But now everyone just watches him dance up the Mur with a kind of resigned awe. I think clinicians need to achieve that kind of ambivalence with Froomey. Nothing wrong with a good dirty champ......

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

So by your logic Indurain and Carl Lewis were both 100% clean?

And btw i remind you that 80% of people in europe are convinced Froome is doping, so depends on your definition of mud sticking.



Are you living the dream though? Vicariously through Froome. a mentally unstable stick insect who despite dominating a sport for 5 years is disliked by the majority of fans within it, to the extent that according to his own team, he can't ride a race without having piss thrown at him/ beer thrown at him/ having his cars attacked/ being booed on the podium etc.

Some dream you are living.

I don't think "despite" is the right word there. People who dominate are often the most hated.

Are you sure about that?

If sports stars were widely hated would companies throw millions at them do advertise products and associate their names with the brand? rhetorical question. Ironically of all Europe's sporting stars Froome (who as a TDF winner should be more famous) is one which gets very little in the way of advertising campaigns.

Look at how much some of these people make from endorsements: https://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tabverall_header:endorsements_sortreverse:true

hated?

You think Roger Federer is widely hated? Or Nadal? quite the contrary. Ronaldo and Messi? Ive seen Messi in some school in London visiting and every child rushed to just get a glimpse. Usain Bolt? Michael Jordan is still making money off his success 20 + years ago.

I don't think youd ever have crowds boo these people.

You just cannot, ever, compare basketball, fotoball or tennis players with cyclists.

I can and am.
You said "People who dominate are often the most hated"

You didn't say "People who dominate are often the most hated, but only in cycling and not in all other sports".

Cycling stars used to be bigger. Before it unfairly got the reputation as - that sport where everyone just dopes.

The thing is that those athletes from the sports you mentioned generate a bigger fandom simply by virtue of the nature of their sport.

That reputation is old. Cycling stars (GC riders) were bigger when they looked more like normal people.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I'll speak as an ex-hater: it was a combination of A/ his ridiculous rise, B/ his horrible on-bike aesthetics, C/ his crushingly powerful team (representing Murdoch) and D/ his actual method of number crunching to smash the finale of a climb with alien wattage.

Quite a lot to hate there.

But I'm past it. A and C remain, B has got better and he has become an interesting and well rounded rider now - attacking on the flats with Sagan, in yellow? Kudos is warranted, he ain't the one trick pony he was. He's grown into something quite different to what he was.

In my view, there is something irrational about the hate. Of course - what else could it be. Can you have hate grounded in reason?

I think the relevant analogy is Valverde. When he came back from his ban, he was widely reviled. But now everyone just watches him dance up the Mur with a kind of resigned awe. I think clinicians need to achieve that kind of ambivalence with Froomey. Nothing wrong with a good dirty champ......

great post
one of the few rational posts I saw on here.

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

I'll speak as an ex-hater: it was a combination of A/ his ridiculous rise, B/ his horrible on-bike aesthetics, C/ his crushingly powerful team (representing Murdoch) and D/ his actual method of number crunching to smash the finale of a climb with alien wattage.

Quite a lot to hate there.

But I'm past it. A and C remain, B has got better and he has become an interesting and well rounded rider now - attacking on the flats with Sagan, in yellow? Kudos is warranted, he ain't the one trick pony he was. He's grown into something quite different to what he was.

In my view, there is something irrational about the hate. Of course - what else could it be. Can you have hate grounded in reason?

I think the relevant analogy is Valverde. When he came back from his ban, he was widely reviled. But now everyone just watches him dance up the Mur with a kind of resigned awe. I think clinicians need to achieve that kind of ambivalence with Froomey. Nothing wrong with a good dirty champ......

great post
one of the few rational posts I saw on here.

This is indeed a good balanced post when dealing with outcomes or effects. It is more ambivalent in the sense that it omits discussing causes or preconditions.

The one point I disagree with is, if you will, an ontological one and concerns causes. Quoting Metallica froome as a cyclist is a "thing that should not be". Yet the current Froome is the ex froome "aufgehoben", with the traces of his becoming hidden from sight. A reification. Valverde is a proven doper, but at least he "was" also as a junior.

Froome? Crickets.

 

[dacooley]

I don't understand what this fuss is all about. Believers will never make haters respect froome regarding him as a well-deserved multiple tour winner, the same as ill-wishers won't be able to convince fans that sky and froome are spawn of hell which prevent bike racing from being watchable. everyone believes in what he/she wants to believe. for me it's pretty clear, froome alongside with the whole team sky A team are going to be drugged up to the eyeballs in the upcoming tour. that's kind of business as usual for them. but i realize how much of a doping resource anyone who dreams of beating sky in the tour should have. defeating froome in july basically implies outdoing sky in the doping war. why the hell should I search my personal revenge in froome getting beaten? just to salute another doper? it would be stupid.

 

[meat puppet]

^ Some of us are stupid enough to think cycling without hi octane doping is possible and desirable if governed properly.

 

[dacooley]

Re:

^ Some of us are stupid enough to think cycling without hi octane doping is possible and desirable if governed properly.

i'm more baffled about drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable doping depending on sentiments to one or another athlete.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

^ Some of us are stupid enough to think cycling without hi octane doping is possible and desirable if governed properly.

i'm more baffled about drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable doping depending on sentiments to one or another athlete.

nail. head

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

^ Some of us are stupid enough to think cycling without hi octane doping is possible and desirable if governed properly.

i'm more baffled about drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable doping depending on sentiments to one or another athlete.

nail. head

Way to miss the point. I'd rather Valverde never returned to his dominant pre ban levels. Life bans are a bit too harsh because as se know, not only athletes are to blame, but i must admit the thought of him not returning from the wee vacation at all is nonetheless intriguing. But fine, call this accepting his doping.

However, he had shown something as a junior at least. Some others not so much.

 

[dacooley]

who is an author of theory a rider should necessarily deliver something big or decent as a junior to be considered a proper grand tour winner? heck, it's a top of irrationality.

 

[Valv.Piti]

'Shown something', like dominating everyone until he became a pro, inclluding +60 wins in a row?

 

[meat puppet]

Re: Re:

^ Some of us are stupid enough to think cycling without hi octane doping is possible and desirable if governed properly.

i'm more baffled about drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable doping depending on sentiments to one or another athlete.

nail. head

Way to miss the point. I'd rather Valverde never returned to his dominant pre ban levels. Life bans are a bit too harsh because as se know, not only athletes are to blame, but i must admit the thought of him not returning from the wee vacation at all is nonetheless intriguing. But fine, call this accepting his doping.

However, he had shown something as a junior at least. Some others not so much.

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

You think Roger Federer is widely hated? Or Nadal? quite the contrary. Ronaldo and Messi? Ive seen Messi in some school in London visiting and every child rushed to just get a glimpse. Usain Bolt? Michael Jordan is still making money off his success 20 + years ago.

I don't think youd ever have crowds boo these people.

Pro cycling fans are tremendous hypocrites (including me). Most of us excuse or ignore doping in riders we like and crucify others we don't like.

The hatred Froome has to face is objectively unreasonable, considering it's at least unlikely he's on anything different than the others (yes, I recognise the irony of that being the Armstrong argument) and kind of weird too.
Didn't Contador also get booed by the French?

Do you really think Froome would still be so unpopular if he took second place in GC a couple times after putting up a good fight? I don't see what particularly sets him apart other than success.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You think Roger Federer is widely hated? Or Nadal? quite the contrary. Ronaldo and Messi? Ive seen Messi in some school in London visiting and every child rushed to just get a glimpse. Usain Bolt? Michael Jordan is still making money off his success 20 + years ago.

I don't think youd ever have crowds boo these people.

Pro cycling fans are tremendous hypocrites (including me). Most of us excuse or ignore doping in riders we like and crucify others we don't like.

The hatred Froome has to face is objectively unreasonable, considering it's at least unlikely he's on anything different than the others (yes, I recognise the irony of that being the Armstrong argument) and kind of weird too.
Didn't Contador also get booed by the French?

Do you really think Froome would still be so unpopular if he took second place in GC a couple times after putting up a good fight? I don't see what particularly sets him apart other than success.

Froome the donkey doing a stick insect impersonation of riding a bike came from nowhere to win 3 TdFs FFS!!!

Yes cycling fans can be hypocrites, but at least they want to see talent and panache, not the rocky horror cycling show that Froome is!!!!