Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 950 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2017
1,019
0
0
Re: Re:

DanielSong39 said:
Fergoose said:
How far down the GC just a rider before you would consider the possibility that they aren't doping Mr 69?
I think it's possible for an extremely talented rider to make it to the Pro Continental level without doping at any point during his career.
Late commenting, but I'm in agreement with this.
 
The Hegelian said:
Electress said:
The Hitch said:
Froome is getting greedy though. 4 TDFs now.
When you are wiggins or cadel or Sastre you can sneak 1 tdf and hide behind history.

with 4 Froome can't do that anymore. And considering how tarnished cycling's reputation is, with every win, he's making himself look even more dodgy.
Agree. The longer it goes on, the more incentive there is for everyone to break silence, dig for a story, sell a story, etc. It only takes one slip.
I counter assert: Indurain.

Armstrong is the exception not the rule.

Froome has played an exceptionally straight bat, let all the fancy bears nicks fly through to the keeper, and is going on to make a chanceless ton. Who would have thought - say in 2013 - that Wiggins and Brailsford would look so much dirtier than Froome? But alas, that is reality. Chapeau is the only word.
Its hillarious when fans always try to give famous people credit for being some sort of strategic geniuses, for doing things that never actually happened. Happened a lot with Armstrong. Oh Armstrong was so smart to do this and that, turns out he was just a fraud who took the easy option everytime.

So Froome is some genius who masterminded a way to look clean when everything around him is dodgy? That is some warped interpretation of what is going on.

The reality is Froome couldn't have made his entire career look more dodgy if he tried and the fan reaction every year reflects that. As does the continued worldwide scepticism to cycling as "that dodgy sport".

No one who doubted Froome in 2013 suddenly believes he is clean. The entirety of the British cycling media continues to be dedicated to defending froome and trying to convince themselves and their readers that he is clean. The reason for that is because they continue to be fighting against a tidal wave.
 
Electress said:
The Hitch said:
Froome is getting greedy though. 4 TDFs now.
When you are wiggins or cadel or Sastre you can sneak 1 tdf and hide behind history.

with 4 Froome can't do that anymore. And considering how tarnished cycling's reputation is, with every win, he's making himself look even more dodgy.
Agree. The longer it goes on, the more incentive there is for everyone to break silence, dig for a story, sell a story, etc. It only takes one slip.
The point im making isnt about whether sky ever fall (totally different subject), but about whether they will ever convince people they are clean.

Frauds are obsessed with convincing people that they are innocent. Its not just about getting away with the crime on a technicality, its about conning everyone into believing it was all legit. You can hear this in the very early (2012) sky literature. Wiggins saying "we are shouting from the rooftops - we are clean".

Whether Sky ever go down or not, they will never win THIS battle however.

So what we have is a moment, 2012, after it was shockingly to most people, revealed that the biggest hero, most well known name and champion, in the sports history, was a total fraud and that they entire sport was marred in doping.

And that same moment, as all faith in cycling has collapsed, a new rider emerges with few to none differences from Armstrong, who dominates exactly like Armstrong, winning Tour after Tour after Tour.

Do Sky or Froome or Walsh really believe the world's reaction is gonna be - oh we were betrayed by Armstrong but this new Armstrong fella who looks like him, walks like him and talks like him, is clean?

That is the height of delusion. Trust in the sport is 0. And Froome by winning TDF after TDF just like Lance, makes himself look like Armstrong 2.0. No one outside fleetstreet buys the creationist level ideas that dope testing in cycling overnight became eficient.
 
The Hitch said:
The Hegelian said:
Electress said:
The Hitch said:
Froome is getting greedy though. 4 TDFs now.
When you are wiggins or cadel or Sastre you can sneak 1 tdf and hide behind history.

with 4 Froome can't do that anymore. And considering how tarnished cycling's reputation is, with every win, he's making himself look even more dodgy.
Agree. The longer it goes on, the more incentive there is for everyone to break silence, dig for a story, sell a story, etc. It only takes one slip.
I counter assert: Indurain.

Armstrong is the exception not the rule.

Froome has played an exceptionally straight bat, let all the fancy bears nicks fly through to the keeper, and is going on to make a chanceless ton. Who would have thought - say in 2013 - that Wiggins and Brailsford would look so much dirtier than Froome? But alas, that is reality. Chapeau is the only word.
Its hillarious when fans always try to give famous people credit for being some sort of strategic geniuses, for doing things that never actually happened. Happened a lot with Armstrong. Oh Armstrong was so smart to do this and that, turns out he was just a fraud who took the easy option everytime.

So Froome is some genius who masterminded a way to look clean when everything around him is dodgy? That is some warped interpretation of what is going on.

The reality is Froome couldn't have made his entire career look more dodgy if he tried and the fan reaction every year reflects that. As does the continued worldwide scepticism to cycling as "that dodgy sport".

No one who doubted Froome in 2013 suddenly believes he is clean. The entirety of the British cycling media continues to be dedicated to defending froome and trying to convince themselves and their readers that he is clean. The reason for that is because they continue to be fighting against a tidal wave.
It's not about being some genius strategic mastermind - it's about being simple and playing a straight bat. Don't get flashy, don't use your power to make friends and enemies, know the game, have fidelity to omerta, etc etc. It's not rocket science.

It is Brailsford who is attempting to play the strategic mastermind PR game: and it's going very pear shaped for him.

Armstrong was smart, in a Machiavellian kind of way. Should have been a politician, he would have been a very good one (good in the Machiavellian sense; successful). But he went way too hard with his global power, and made enough enemies to get taken down.

My point is that a/ Indurain never played it like that - and he appears today as a dignified legend of the sport. and b/ Froome is playing it a lot like Indurain did.

Central to your thinking is an assumption that there is some important causation between genuine fans of the sport who find Froome ludicrous, and fair weather tdf fans who merely consume ASO product. The only thing that matters are the latter: and they believe. That's the game. The hack on Wiggins was one little breath of reality intervening, but it's just a breath.
 
If Geraint Thomas was on the podium, won the tdf 4 times ...would that be ok ? I think it would....personally I dont mind if Sky are doped up because so are the other teams. We have had to endure Sastre, Contador etc winning every tdf every year so why not join them. It annoyed me to see Contador up there every year.

Its the donkey to racehorse which is annoying...like Wiggins, Froome is donkey. Any other rider in Sky would be legitimate in my eyes as they have all gone through the ranks.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Re:

Cycle Chic said:
If Geraint Thomas was on the podium, won the tdf 4 times ...would that be ok ? I think it would....personally I dont mind if Sky are doped up because so are the other teams. We have had to endure Sastre, Contador etc winning every tdf every year so why not join them. It annoyed me to see Contador up there every year.

Its the donkey to racehorse which is annoying...like Wiggins, Froome is donkey. Any other rider in Sky would be legitimate in my eyes as they have all gone through the ranks.
and to my brief knowledge no one knows how this happened, bilharzia or a tremendous responder to one or various of Sky's programs..........

Watching this year, I thought he was either lacking form, showing signs of his age or deliberately running a much reduced program to ensure what they were using wouldn't be easily/if currently at all picked up in tests, a clear nod to Skys predicament and a safety first, tactical 'race by numbers' approach.

What did catch my eye was Urans miraculous recovery after 2 seasons of being dropped when it mattered and Barguil breaking the record (from Stava) on the Izoard; Froomes performance looked relatively innocuous in comparison.........
 
Re:

Cycle Chic said:
If Geraint Thomas was on the podium, won the tdf 4 times ...would that be ok ? I think it would....personally I dont mind if Sky are doped up because so are the other teams. We have had to endure Sastre, Contador etc winning every tdf every year so why not join them. It annoyed me to see Contador up there every year.

Its the donkey to racehorse which is annoying...like Wiggins, Froome is donkey. Any other rider in Sky would be legitimate in my eyes as they have all gone through the ranks.
This and the fact that Sky are so insanely unlikeable. Brailsford in particular might be the most uncharismatic DS ever to grace the sport, and Froome also has the personality of a melon. I never warmed to Wiggins either, but I guess he was a bit weird and had funny hair.

Sky and Astana are without a doubt the two most suspicious teams in the peloton at the moment, although Saxo Tinkoff surely gave them a run for their money before Oleg threw his final hissy fit and pulled the plug. Those three teams have cleaned up 12 of the last 16 Grand Tours in recent years, while the epic fraudster and charisma vacuum Chris Horner also has one. That's a lot of wins for riders who aren't at all likeable and/or credible.

When you have suspicious teams filled with mostly unlikeable riders (I actually like the way Nibbles and Bertie ride, but lets be honest... Both them and their teams were rotten to the core) sweeping up pretty much every major stage race for five years straight it's no surprise that the animosity towards them grows, and Sky with their lack of credibility combined with the potent mixture of their holier-than-thou attitude, enormous buses that take up all the room on parking lots, massively inflated budgets that allow them to sign GC contender-level riders as domestiques, uncharismatic leaders and donkeys winning Grand Tours deserve a hell of a lot of that animosity.

You can't waltz into a sport like cycling and flaunt supposed moral superiority, success, excess and dominance and not expect to receive a lot of hate. Cycling is a sport traditionally followed by working class people. A team like Team Sky comes across as a bit of a slap in the face to people like that.
 
Saint Unix said:
Cycle Chic said:
You can't waltz into a sport like cycling and flaunt supposed moral superiority, success, excess and dominance and not expect to receive a lot of hate. Cycling is a sport traditionally followed by working class people. A team like Team Sky comes across as a bit of a slap in the face to people like that.
it is my belief that team sky really did want to do everything 100% cleans...........however
somewhere along the way i was realised that it was not possible..........promises had been
made to win the tour........sponsors demanded results

team sky pretty much dropped such talk after wiggo's win..............but how far have they pushed
the envelope? supported TUE's or beyond.............

at least they have stuck to 'no convicted dopers' on the staff.......any other teams doing that....

Mark L
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

ebandit said:
Saint Unix said:
Cycle Chic said:
You can't waltz into a sport like cycling and flaunt supposed moral superiority, success, excess and dominance and not expect to receive a lot of hate. Cycling is a sport traditionally followed by working class people. A team like Team Sky comes across as a bit of a slap in the face to people like that.
it is my belief that team sky really did want to do everything 100% cleans...........however
somewhere along the way i was realised that it was not possible..........promises had been
made to win the tour........sponsors demanded results

team sky pretty much dropped such talk after wiggo's win..............but how far have they pushed
the envelope? supported TUE's or beyond.............

at least they have stuck to 'no convicted dopers' on the staff.......any other teams doing that....

Mark L
Maybe so, or maybe they opted with branding first, results later.

If they really meant it, perhaps a stronger impact/message could have been made in declaring that it simply isn't possible to compete under a true cleaner than clean regime - and as such a potential (huge)moneymaker for the sport would pull out.
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
 
Re:

mrhender said:
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
Yeah, it does work like that.

Somewhat like fascism - or indeed any political system or structure. At first there's shock, outrage and disbelief. Then it becomes normalised, then it becomes the very fabric of reality and people can't even imagine anything different.
 
Sep 6, 2016
584
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
mrhender said:
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
Yeah, it does work like that.

Somewhat like fascism - or indeed any political system or structure. At first there's shock, outrage and disbelief. Then it becomes normalised, then it becomes the very fabric of reality and people can't even imagine anything different.
I think a lot people in the media have just realized how pointless it is to question Froome/DB/Sky. Look at how they responded to criticism this tour. In 2013 and 15 you had incredible performances which had to be explained. There hasn't been too much too really hammer Froomey on. What could you say? "Please answer the questions that you've answered for the last 5 years again?" Wait til something new comes out, then (hopefully) the media will give them a proper interrogation.
 
Sep 6, 2016
584
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
mrhender said:
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
Yeah, it does work like that.

Somewhat like fascism - or indeed any political system or structure. At first there's shock, outrage and disbelief. Then it becomes normalised, then it becomes the very fabric of reality and people can't even imagine anything different.
I think a lot people in the media have just realized how pointless it is to question Froome/DB/Sky. Look at how they responded to criticism this tour. In 2013 and 15 you had incredible performances which had to be explained. There hasn't been too much too really hammer Froomey on. What could you say? "Please answer the questions that you've answered for the last 5 years again?" Wait til something new comes out, then (hopefully) the media will give them a proper interrogation.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Re:

mrhender said:
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
Post-2015, he seems to have controlled the urge to go full genius. In 2017 he couldn't seem to string 2 good days of racing in a row until the Dauphine.

And since the 2015 physiological testing, he appears less engaged trying to sell himself as being clean. I would imagine he had limited returns on that investment, as I don't think many who did doubt him would have been convince of his cleanliness by any of his efforts.

He seems to have gone with the tried and true practice of not drawing attention to himself. And that approach seems to be working.
 
Re: Re:

Bag_O_Wallet said:
mrhender said:
Another noteworthy thing, for me at least. Is how Froome in his first win had to declare cleanliness on the podium in Paris, but as years go by. People come to accept the absurdity of his transformation as his regular wins in TDF almost make him more legit.. Ha..
Post-2015, he seems to have controlled the urge to go full genius. In 2017 he couldn't seem to string 2 good days of racing in a row until the Dauphine.

And since the 2015 physiological testing, he appears less engaged trying to sell himself as being clean. I would imagine he had limited returns on that investment, as I don't think many who did doubt him would have been convince of his cleanliness by any of his efforts.

He seems to have gone with the tried and true practice of not drawing attention to himself. And that approach seems to be working.

He has become completely beige. Not interesting, not boring just a nothing. The Tour is much the same. Froome doesn't sell being clean or not clean in fact Sky didn't really even talk talk to the media much just issued press statements, it was a Tour without any colour. Hard to feel any emotion about one way or the other.
 
Which is actually the smart way to go about things. Riding extremely conservatively like he has done in the last two years, except the downhill attack and crosswind attack last year, of course, has seemed to reduce the amount of doping accusations compared to 2012-2015. Sky as a team are neutralizing the race all the way to the end, rather than pulling Froome to the last mountain and unleashing him. Since he knows he will crush everyone close to him in he GC in the TTs he just has to sit on the wheel of whoever is putting pressure on him in the mountains. There's been plenty of occasion in the last couple of TdFs where it looked like Froome had far more gas in the tank, but chose to ride conservatively.

When he had a flat after AG2R had started putting the hammer down he managed to drag back a 40 second deficit on less than one cat. 1 climb, despite AG2R riding at a consistently high pace. He also had enough in him to respond to an attack after he'd regrouped. On Izoard he rode away from Bardet and Uran with ease and created a huge gap in a matter of seconds, but looked to ease off as soon as he'd gotten onto the back of Landa. Last year he consistently followed the attacks of the other favorites and never actually dropped time to his rvals in the mountains, except for a few seconds lost to Bardet at the very end when the race was already wrapped up. Up until stage 19 he was the only rider in the top 10 who had not lost time to any of the other top 10s in the mountains, somewhat helped by the officials on the Ventoux stage, obviously. He's still the best climber and time trialist of the GC contenders by a mile when he shows up in France. He's just way better at hiding it, and he doesn't clean up other stage races during the season. Instead he grabs his Tour win and calls it a day, Lance style. Now, if he grabs the Vuelta this year there's going to be fireworks coming against him from his doubters, so I hope he's dumb enough to do it.

Staying out of the media, both during the TdF and otherwise, also reduces the negative attention towards him, because even when he does physiological testing to prove how squeaky clean he is the only thing he accomplishes is more doping accusations, because the part of the audience that saw his 2011 transformation and knows what something like that means in the sport of cycling will never believe him anyway. Especially when his attempts to prove his cleanliness are half-arsed at best. It's been almost six years since he went E.T. Mode and Sky have released almost no power files, blood values or anything else that stands up to scientific scrutiny and is of any value to anyone trying to prove Froome is clean.

My guess is that any relevant data would probably prove the exact opposite, so they can't release it. In that case it's better to just shut up and generate as little media attention as possible rather than stringing people along in the limelight until they start criticizing again.
 
If it makes you feel any better the majority of the general population believe that cycling is a joke sport filled with doping.
Of course, similar logic is not used to discredit football/basketball/baseball/etc.
At the end of the day, "suspension of disbelief" applies when it comes to corruption and drug use, and that is what allows fans to enjoy top-level sports.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Re:

Saint Unix said:
Which is actually the smart way to go about things. Riding extremely conservatively like he has done in the last two years, except the downhill attack and crosswind attack last year, of course, has seemed to reduce the amount of doping accusations compared to 2012-2015. Sky as a team are neutralizing the race all the way to the end, rather than pulling Froome to the last mountain and unleashing him. Since he knows he will crush everyone close to him in he GC in the TTs he just has to sit on the wheel of whoever is putting pressure on him in the mountains. There's been plenty of occasion in the last couple of TdFs where it looked like Froome had far more gas in the tank, but chose to ride conservatively.

When he had a flat after AG2R had started putting the hammer down he managed to drag back a 40 second deficit on less than one cat. 1 climb, despite AG2R riding at a consistently high pace. He also had enough in him to respond to an attack after he'd regrouped. On Izoard he rode away from Bardet and Uran with ease and created a huge gap in a matter of seconds, but looked to ease off as soon as he'd gotten onto the back of Landa. Last year he consistently followed the attacks of the other favorites and never actually dropped time to his rvals in the mountains, except for a few seconds lost to Bardet at the very end when the race was already wrapped up. Up until stage 19 he was the only rider in the top 10 who had not lost time to any of the other top 10s in the mountains, somewhat helped by the officials on the Ventoux stage, obviously. He's still the best climber and time trialist of the GC contenders by a mile when he shows up in France. He's just way better at hiding it, and he doesn't clean up other stage races during the season. Instead he grabs his Tour win and calls it a day, Lance style. Now, if he grabs the Vuelta this year there's going to be fireworks coming against him from his doubters, so I hope he's dumb enough to do it.

Staying out of the media, both during the TdF and otherwise, also reduces the negative attention towards him, because even when he does physiological testing to prove how squeaky clean he is the only thing he accomplishes is more doping accusations, because the part of the audience that saw his 2011 transformation and knows what something like that means in the sport of cycling will never believe him anyway. Especially when his attempts to prove his cleanliness are half-arsed at best. It's been almost six years since he went E.T. Mode and Sky have released almost no power files, blood values or anything else that stands up to scientific scrutiny and is of any value to anyone trying to prove Froome is clean.

My guess is that any relevant data would probably prove the exact opposite, so they can't release it. In that case it's better to just shut up and generate as little media attention as possible rather than stringing people along in the limelight until they start criticizing again.
This is inline with my observations of the race this year. I don't think there was any real point where he was in danger, but his riding style has always made it hard to tell if his legs are going to fall off, or if he's going to make the most blistering attack ever witnessed in the sport.

At the start of the season, I was of the belief that Froome would need 5 Tour wins and at least one other Grand Tour victory to sell the mythology that he's the most remarkable bike racer ever. All the races prior to the Dauphine really challenged this notion, but watching him at the Tour I think he'll show up to the Vuelta, and be able to do what he needs to do to win with a similar conservative margin.
 
I find it completely implausible that Froome had the legs to take good time in the mountains, but chose not to in order to avoid drawing attention to himself.

The counter argument for this tdf is unimpeachable: do you really think Sky + Froome would have controlled and calculated such a small margin before the final tt? I mean, one puncture, mechanical or crash and he loses the tour. They're not idiots. They wanted more of a buffer and tried pretty hard to get one - Froome didn't have the legs.
 
Re:

The Hegelian said:
I find it completely implausible that Froome had the legs to take good time in the mountains, but chose not to in order to avoid drawing attention to himself.

The counter argument for this tdf is unimpeachable: do you really think Sky + Froome would have controlled and calculated such a small margin before the final tt? I mean, one puncture, mechanical or crash and he loses the tour. They're not idiots. They wanted more of a buffer and tried pretty hard to get one - Froome didn't have the legs.
well if he is to get the coveted Tour + Vuelta double
he had to play it low effort during the tour.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/40738725
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY