Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[spalco]

How can you even tell who has talent anymore? Guys like Contador, Valverde, Nibali may have been doping since spotting the first hair on their balls.

If you assume that everyone's dirty, then it follows that you can't trust juniors results either, let alone neo-pros.

All you're saying essentially is, that it's easier for you to look the other way with riders who look the part better than Froome, but it doesn't really connect with doping itself.

 

[DFA123]

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's unpopularity I think comes because his transformation from donkey to racehourse was so blatant. At least with the likes of Valverde and Sagan, there is an inkling that these guys are insane talents - sweeping up all before them at junior leve, with well rounded power profilesl - and may well have been the creme de la creme of the sport even if there was no doping.

Froome, on the other hand, has a relatively poor junior record and a poor record as a young pro. He was about to be released from his contract. Then, pretty much overnight, turned into the best GC rider since Armstrong. And then all the lies, the spin from Sky and the ridiculous attempted justifications, make it hard to find any sympathy for Froome.

 

[deValtos]

Re: Re:

I remember when the clinic used to be: Dopers are muppets.

For the past few years it's been: Dopers I'm not a fan of are terrible. Dopers I like are great!

 

[red_flanders]

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.

It's simpler than that. Most of us understand that at the top-level there is doping going on. So we pick who we like.

Some riders are, in fact, more absurd than others. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something or rationalizing their fandom.

Some riders and teams make profound attempts to convince gullible fans they are clean. Sky and Froome are historically among the worst offenders here. To say their efforts in this realm are the same as everyone else is an utterly false equivalency. They have produced a littany of profoundly absurd lies, verifiably false, which they expect fans to swallow. Which some of course do. This is offensive to anyone with a functioning knowledge of the sport or an operational brain.

These are among the reasons why people don't like Froome. That and his excruciating lack of style on the bike. It's like watching a Frankenstein monster someone created as a bike rider. It's aesthetically offensive to me.

So among the dopers, I rule out the most absurd doping, the most intelligence-insulting story, the most ridiculous team narrative about why they're good, and the most un-gainly looking mutant of the bunch.

There is no hypocrisy, it's simply a preference. You just don't like that people can't stand your guy. Tough. Live with it. Making it into something it's not makes you look fairly silly, defensive, and thin-skinned. IMO.

 

[dacooley]

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!!!!

come on, the type of fans you are referring to, yes, those respectable gentlemen who think on the level of 'stick insect impersonation' and other derogatory comparisons, will find lots of reasons to hate anyone,whatever champion could be. no need to try to give one's unconcealed hatred some rational motives as either way it's 100% irrational.

 

[spalco]

Re: Re:

There is no hypocrisy, it's simply a preference. You just don't like that people can't stand your guy. Tough. Live with it. Making it into something it's not makes you look fairly silly, defensive, and thin-skinned. IMO.

That's not quite fair.

I do like Froome, and I know most don't but it's actually kind of fun to be contrarian about this, especially when he wins. Cycling is just entertainment to me, like a movie. It's not serious business like football.

It doesn't bother me at all that Froome isn't popular, but the adversity against him - not in the forum, but on the actual road - got too intense for me last year. Whatever happens in the next couple weeks, on the bike or in the lab, whoever interferes with the race for whatever reason is just a piece of ***. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

There is no hypocrisy, it's simply a preference. You just don't like that people can't stand your guy. Tough. Live with it. Making it into something it's not makes you look fairly silly, defensive, and thin-skinned. IMO.

That's not quite fair.

I do like Froome, and I know most don't but it's actually kind of fun to be contrarian about this, especially when he wins. Cycling is just entertainment to me, like a movie. It's not serious business like football.

It doesn't bother me at all that Froome isn't popular, but the adversity against him - not in the forum, but on the actual road - got too intense for me last year. Whatever happens in the next couple weeks, on the bike or in the lab, whoever interferes with the race for whatever reason is just a piece of ****. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

My last sentence was unnecessary. Apologies for that. I stand by the general thrust of my comments though.

People seem to want to act mystified as to why people dislike Froome despite many reasons being stated repeatedly in this thread and others. There are clearly some hurt feelings involved there. Now we have someone banging the "irrational" drum. Ironic. As I said above, it's objectively more absurd for someone who has never won anything to dominate the sport than from someone who has won all their career to dominate the sport. *Shrug*. It is what it is. I guess people think they can pre-emptively lay out a case for clinic members not bashing Froome when/if he goes nuclear this year. Good luck with that.

Most of that not addressed to you, but the general direction of discussion the last few pages.

 

[DanielSong39]

It's easy to see why Froome catches a lot of flak.

- Huge transformation as a rider
- PR strategy from Team Sky
- Off-the-bike politics from Team Sky
- Winning a lot

Apparently the above factors rub a lot of people the wrong way.

As for doping, it's a non-issue since everyone dopes.

 

[The Hegelian]

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.

It's simpler than that. Most of us understand that at the top-level there is doping going on. So we pick who we like.

Some riders are, in fact, more absurd than others. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something or rationalizing their fandom.

Some riders and teams make profound attempts to convince gullible fans they are clean. Sky and Froome are historically among the worst offenders here. To say their efforts in this realm are the same as everyone else is an utterly false equivalency. They have produced a littany of profoundly absurd lies, verifiably false, which they expect fans to swallow. Which some of course do. This is offensive to anyone with a functioning knowledge of the sport or an operational brain.

These are among the reasons why people don't like Froome. That and his excruciating lack of style on the bike. It's like watching a Frankenstein monster someone created as a bike rider. It's aesthetically offensive to me.

So among the dopers, I rule out the most absurd doping, the most intelligence-insulting story, the most ridiculous team narrative about why they're good, and the most un-gainly looking mutant of the bunch.

There is no hypocrisy, it's simply a preference. You just don't like that people can't stand your guy. Tough. Live with it. Making it into something it's not makes you look fairly silly, defensive, and thin-skinned. IMO.

I kind of agree with this, but I don't think we really need the appeal to objectivity.

It is ultimately, as you say, a preference. Preferences depend on a great deal on things which actually aren't measurable or quantifiable; things like aesthetic value (which you mention) and historical context (which others have mentioned). They are, in the final analysis, grounded in desire. Reason only comes in at the end of all of that to rank or order those values into quasi objective preferences

i.e. Valverde is more preferable to Froome, in lieu of his proven junior talent. Those kinds of opinions make sense, and they do deploy a certain kind of logic - but they are hardly demonstrations of immutable reason.

In the final analysis, we love who love and hate who we hate first, and then come up with our reasons second.

I'll call this 'the Pantani rule.'

 

[Singer01]

Re:

It's easy to see why Froome catches a lot of flak.

- Huge transformation as a rider

Apparently the above factors rub a lot of people the wrong way.

As for doping, it's a non-issue since everyone dopes.

I have never understood why the above is a problem. Cheat your whole career and we'll give you a break, give it a go until your late 20s and decide you can only compete with some help and we'll vilify you. *** *** logic.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

It's easy to see why Froome catches a lot of flak.

- Huge transformation as a rider

Apparently the above factors rub a lot of people the wrong way.

As for doping, it's a non-issue since everyone dopes.

I have never understood why the above is a problem. Cheat your whole career and we'll give you a break, give it a go until your late 20s and decide you can only compete with some help and we'll vilify you. **** *** logic.

oh yessss.

 

[dacooley]

it's a class hatred related to a certain type of human progress me thinks. someone studies very well, working really hard for 5 or 6 years to graduate from university with honors, however career doesn't want to go uphill. Meanwhile other one visits night clubs hanging out with chicks instead of taking attention to education, but then for no apparent reason makes an insane career in no time. mediocrities are often willing to despise nonames turning into big fishes as there are millions of failures and some few guys like froome in our world.

no one knows how 100% clean cycling would've looked like, tho I admit froome might have been an ordinary gruppetto rider in the tour. notwithstanding with the current state of things, I strongly doubt froome works to a lesser extent than quintana, bardet or any other big contender. it's already more than enough to me to regard his victories allowable.

 

[ontheroad]

It takes a special kind of programme to host a 1 hour pre tour preview including an interview with Froome, without even mentioning doping or motors. Especially so given the sky saga over the winter. The BBC have pulled it off however.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08xztm8

 

[portugal11]

So all the trek riders are full of EPO, including contador... so I will wait to see how strong porte and froome will be in PDBF (never forget the grandpa valverde). My bet is 6.7 w/kg

 

[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!!!!

come on, the type of fans you are referring to, yes, those respectable gentlemen who think on the level of 'stick insect impersonation' and other derogatory comparisons, will find lots of reasons to hate anyone,whatever champion could be. no need to try to give one's unconcealed hatred some rational motives as either way it's 100% irrational.

I dont have hatred towards any of the current riders. I think Froome is a joke, but i dont hate him*. He does have some talent as he would not have made Konica without having a high level of ability. But GT winner. Never.

I dont support any riders. I dont even watch races live at present, because i dont know whether i am watching CyclingGP( see MotoGP) with a sprinkling of PEDs on top or cycling with PEDs as per normal.


*I do give Froome some credit for getting to the top of his sport. You have to be dedicated in many various different guises to win in a sport where the dice are loaded, the bikes are loaded and the syringes are loaded. He did that and he deserves some kind of respect as he did not create the environment the sport operates in, namely a cesspit, but he is beating the system, whether the system is using him as much as he is beating it who knows. But he aint pretty to watch and maybe he deserves some more credit for being that ungainly on a bike and still winning 3 TdFs.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

*I do give Froome some credit for getting to the top of his sport. You have to be dedicated in many various different guises to win in a sport where the dice are loaded, the bikes are loaded and the syringes are loaded. He did that and he deserves some kind of respect as he did not create the environment the sport operates in, namely a cesspit, but he is beating the system, whether the system is using him as much as he is beating it who knows. But he aint pretty to watch and maybe he deserves some more credit for being that ungainly on a bike and still winning 3 TdFs.

sticky this.

i'm more pissed off at the likes of david walsh who are in a near-ideal position to change the system but instead decide to embrace it and fuel it.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

So all the trek riders are full of EPO, including contador... so I will wait to see how strong porte and froome will be in PDBF (never forget the grandpa valverde). My bet is 6.7 w/kg

EPO never went away.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

...

*I do give Froome some credit for getting to the top of his sport. You have to be dedicated in many various different guises to win in a sport where the dice are loaded, the bikes are loaded and the syringes are loaded. He did that and he deserves some kind of respect as he did not create the environment the sport operates in, namely a cesspit, but he is beating the system, whether the system is using him as much as he is beating it who knows. But he aint pretty to watch and maybe he deserves some more credit for being that ungainly on a bike and still winning 3 TdFs.

sticky this.

i'm more pissed off at the likes of david walsh who are in a near-ideal position to change the system but instead decide to embrace it and fuel it.

Nah Walsh cant change it, no more than Kimmage could. But JV now he could have had a positive influence on change, but instead plays both sides hoping to come out near the top on the winning side. Pure sleiveen

 

[ontheroad]

Re: Re:

I dont have hatred towards any of the current riders. I think Froome is a joke, but i dont hate him*. He does have some talent as he would not have made Konica without having a high level of ability. But GT winner. Never.

I dont support any riders. I dont even watch races live at present, because i dont know whether i am watching CyclingGP( see MotoGP) with a sprinkling of PEDs on top or cycling with PEDs as per normal.


*I do give Froome some credit for getting to the top of his sport. You have to be dedicated in many various different guises to win in a sport where the dice are loaded, the bikes are loaded and the syringes are loaded. He did that and he deserves some kind of respect as he did not create the environment the sport operates in, namely a cesspit, but he is beating the system, whether the system is using him as much as he is beating it who knows. But he aint pretty to watch and maybe he deserves some more credit for being that ungainly on a bike and still winning 3 TdFs.

Pretty much how I feel also. Don't hate the player, hate the game. I do still watch the racing live though and I can't help but being drawn towards it even if I have my eyes wide open.

Froome just happens to be the most dominant rider over the last 5 years and couple that with his come from nowhere transformation and his ungainly style and it's easy to see why it annoys people that it's flagship cyclist has made a mockery of the sport. However he is just the main actor in an ongoing soap opera. I would blame the director Brian Cookson, the producer Dave Brailsford and the PR manager David Walsh together with a largely complicit media who know what is happening yet say nothing.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

I have never understood why the above is a problem. Cheat your whole career and we'll give you a break, give it a go until your late 20s and decide you can only compete with some help and we'll vilify you. **** *** logic.

It is ridiculous logic–probably why no one with a brain espouses your strawman. It assumes we know someone has cheated their entire career and assumes we know Froome was clean his entire career before 2011. Which are both entirely impossible to confirm and wildly doubtful.

Valverde takes a ton of heat here, he's a good example. Fact is he wins and always has won a lot of races because he is FAST. There is no dope that makes him a faster finisher than everyone else. Does he dope now, and does he stay fresh because he is doping? Quite likely. But while it's possible that he's been doping for a long, long time, what can't be argued is that he has always had the finishing sprint and was always going to be a winner of some kind. In Froome you fairly obviously have someone who had no particular talent as a winner who was somehow transformed into a world-beater. I find it off-putting because he is simply responding better than everyone else to whatever cheating he's doing. I don't like any of the doping, and I don't excuse anyone more than anyone else. But for me, Froome is a guy that would NEVER win in a clean, level playing field. Valverde obviously would. I don't really like Valverde all that much, but he isn't just a freak on some drugs. Froome is to me like Andy Schleck. Not a great bike handler, racer, tactician or finisher. Just hopped up on drugs or a motor or whatever. He's boring. His team rides in a boring manner. It's a style of racing that is entirely dependent on dominance and cheating.

Other riders are bike racers who would find ways to win.

Again. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Dope or no dope. Imagining Froome was clean at Barloworld makes me laugh.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Again. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Dope or no dope. Imagining Froome was clean at Barloworld makes me laugh.

Or does it just mean that the person who always had results started doping earlier ?

See the 14 year old Italian caught with a positive test in todays news shorts.
(or so as not to point at a single nationality the British junior Gabriel Evans with his EPO case, and the widespread steroid use in South African schools rugby)

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Again. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Dope or no dope. Imagining Froome was clean at Barloworld makes me laugh.

Or does it just mean that the person who always had results started doping earlier ?

See the 14 year old Italian caught with a positive test in todays news shorts.
(or so as not to point at a single nationality the British junior Gabriel Evans with his EPO case, and the widespread steroid use in South African schools rugby)

Steroids is widespread full stop. Gyms are flooded with the stuff. School kids who want to compete are buying it online all over the western world, others follow the herd. Amateur sport is rife with doping.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Again. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Dope or no dope. Imagining Froome was clean at Barloworld makes me laugh.

Or does it just mean that the person who always had results started doping earlier ?

See the 14 year old Italian caught with a positive test in todays news shorts.
(or so as not to point at a single nationality the British junior Gabriel Evans with his EPO case, and the widespread steroid use in South African schools rugby)

Bingo.
Messi is another precious case in point. Documented steroid doper at age 12.


As for Froome, he wasn't clean at Barlo. Was likely using EPO just as his roommate Duenas, and everything else available to him at the time.
But he wasn't using a motor yet.

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

Again. It's is objectively more absurd for a rider who never had a result to dominate the sport than for a rider who has always had results to dominate the sport. Dope or no dope. Imagining Froome was clean at Barloworld makes me laugh.

Or does it just mean that the person who always had results started doping earlier ?

See the 14 year old Italian caught with a positive test in todays news shorts.
(or so as not to point at a single nationality the British junior Gabriel Evans with his EPO case, and the widespread steroid use in South African schools rugby)

Bingo.
Messi is another precious case in point. Documented steroid doper at age 12.


As for Froome, he wasn't clean at Barlo. Was likely using EPO just as his roommate Duenas, and everything else available to him at the time.
But he wasn't using a motor yet.

...and he was fat ... apparently.

 

[deeno1975]

And Froomey is back.... yawn for the next 2 and a half weeks...