Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/893014361568145408

Love that tweet from Tucker. Fits in many threads, but arguably best in this one.

A tweet about a runner, a female runner, yet you want to turn it on Froome

:lol:

One you also believe is clean no?

I don't know one way or the other, I know as much as you, its all guess work...

if I was going to say he or anyone else is dirty I'd try and back it up with true facts

This type of post was common before the Reasoned Decision too. So called facts were required.

Ignore the evidence, lack of rigours infallible independent testing, lack of transparency, constant lies, beating known doping teams,, hiring doping doctors, doping riders, ex doping riders, false claims of blood diseases, false claims of asthma, false claims of ketone use, rushed TUEs, history of the sport and a culture to dope that has not changed.

And the wail is for facts. :lol:

 

[rick james]

Again your just saying guess work and innuendo....

 

[rick james]

And your proof about froome not having asthma is that he didn't talk about it in his autobiography....how crazy is that?

 

[rick james]

And if you're going to make claims it must be easy to back them up surely?

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

And your proof about froome not having asthma is that he didn't talk about it in his autobiography....how crazy is that?

The only issue with the Asthma stuff, is you can't have that and Bilharzia. Unless Froome only got Asthma in 2012/13. Or had Asthma, got cured, then caught Bilharzia, got cured, only to catch Asthma again.

 

[rick james]

Why can't you have asthma and bilharzia?

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

And if you're going to make claims it must be easy to back them up surely?

I list out the claims. You have chosen in typical fanboy/intern fashion to ignore them.

Froome has come along at the lowest point the sport has been in for years. Armstrong admitted his doping and 15 riders on the team admitted they were doping.

So how are fans supposed to think, ok, this guy who was going to be jettisoned by his team and never had shown any WT winning potential suddenly rips up the Vuelta and only after getting a place because a team mate pulled out.

I would think fans of the sport are entitled to ask WTF and HTF did this happen?

Froome and Sky have told umpteen lies and provided no transparency in explaining how they did not see a GT winner or how he suddenly transformed in 2 weeks.

So the list i provided above is evidence of doping. While not a smoking gun, Froome nor the team have been transparent about how Froome turned from Donkey into a Anquetil/Indurain/Hinault and yet you expect fans to believe until we see his blood bags, or a syringe hanging out of his arm?

The sport has shat on fans for so long, the fans are entitled to ask hard questions and want to see evidence and transparency of clean cycling before believing. Especially guys like Wiggins and Froome, but of all of the pros.

I think this is the clearest evidence of your trolling.

Now until you can provide some transparency and evidence that sky are clean, run along.

 

[veganrob]

Benotti, you are wasting your time trying to explain to rickjames what he has read dozens of time and knows full well. He likes to put his fingers in his ears and sing lalalalalal to anything that might tarnish his heroes.

 

[sniper]

Yeah.
One of the (deliberately) reocurring flaws in the 'reasoning' of posters like James and Indurain111 is that we need to have have "proof", otherwise we're just "guessing".
And, of course, the only type of proof/evidence they are willing to consider is a positive test, or the motor to be taken out of Froomes bike in front of a live camera.
Everythong else is just guessing.

Which is Uber pathetic if you have even the slightest knowledge of the history of doping and corruption in topsport.
Either they lack that basic knowledge, or they have no intentions to debate in the first place.

 

[silvergrenade]

Re:

Yeah.
One of the (deliberately) reocurring flaws in the 'reasoning' of posters like James and Indurain111 is that we need to have have "proof", otherwise we're just "guessing".
And, of course, the only type of proof/evidence they are willing to consider is a positive test, or the motor to be taken out of Froomes bike in front of a live camera.
Everythong else is just guessing.

Which is Uber pathetic if you have even the slightest knowledge of the history of doping and corruption in topsport.
Either they lack that basic knowledge, or they have no intentions to debate in the first place.

He may be medically doping...
But to prove mechanical doping, you'd actually need to catch Froome with a motor in his bike.
He's shown through data of the Vuelta 2011, Tour 2012 and the GSK test last year what his numbers are and what he's capable of doing.

I leave you with Dr. Ferraris comment:

Froome's performances, who was heavily insulted in the last stages by overeager fans probably excited and incited by the many allegations in the French press, are in line with those of the TdF of the past 15 years.
His disproportionate body, that already in 2013 I defined as "alien", his ungainly position on the bike, his accelerations at cadences never seen before make Chris a cyclist "different" from the classic stereotypes of the European tradition, such as Nibali, Quintana, Valverde and Contador himself. Different and therefore suspect.

 

[sniper]

Not sure what your point is. In any case you seem to have missed mine.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

And if you're going to make claims it must be easy to back them up surely?

I list out the claims. You have chosen in typical fanboy/intern fashion to ignore them.

Froome has come along at the lowest point the sport has been in for years. Armstrong admitted his doping and 15 riders on the team admitted they were doping.

So how are fans supposed to think, ok, this guy who was going to be jettisoned by his team and never had shown any WT winning potential suddenly rips up the Vuelta and only after getting a place because a team mate pulled out.

I would think fans of the sport are entitled to ask WTF and HTF did this happen?

Froome and Sky have told umpteen lies and provided no transparency in explaining how they did not see a GT winner or how he suddenly transformed in 2 weeks.

So the list i provided above is evidence of doping. While not a smoking gun, Froome nor the team have been transparent about how Froome turned from Donkey into a Anquetil/Indurain/Hinault and yet you expect fans to believe until we see his blood bags, or a syringe hanging out of his arm?

The sport has shat on fans for so long, the fans are entitled to ask hard questions and want to see evidence and transparency of clean cycling before believing. Especially guys like Wiggins and Froome, but of all of the pros.

I think this is the clearest evidence of your trolling.

Now until you can provide some transparency and evidence that sky are clean, run along.

still don't see any proof, simple show proof

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

"show me the proof" in reply to every single post. Botting much?

What exactly you want proof of?

There is about a 99% chance that you'll find it in this thread.
Challenge us and tell us what you want proof of.

You squirming "where is the proof" 10 times a day obvioussly doesn t mean there is no proof. It just means you haven't read or seen it.

 

[DanielSong39]

rick james is obviously trolling.

Let's see what happens in the Vuelta. He would've have a good chance last year if he didn't have a motor malfunction on Stage 15. Maybe they've worked out the kinks this year.

 

[rick james]

this great doper must have slipped up somewhere, just show me that's he had doped...everything is innuendo and guess work

 

[rick james]

rick james is obviously trolling.

Let's see what happens in the Vuelta. He would've have a good chance last year if he didn't have a motor malfunction on Stage 15. Maybe they've worked out the kinks this year.

so i'm trolling but I want proof from the folks that claims of doping...


I mean of this is folks proof of doping then what a sad world

Froome has come along at the lowest point the sport has been in for years. Armstrong admitted his doping and 15 riders on the team admitted they were doping

 

[sniper]

You didn't know he took prednisolone?
Next.

 

[rick james]

please explain

 

[sniper]

Next, as in subsequent, following.

 

[deviant]

I feel your pain Rick James, while I'm skeptical about most pro sportsmen these days I'm also shocked at the level of idiocy in here at times....only in the clinic would a load of supposed doping experts confuse steroidal anti inflammatory meds with anabolic steroids....it's almost funny except that they then use their flawed arguments as 'proof' of doping.

Dianabol is an anabolic steroid, it helps with protein synthesis, repair, strength etc...all the classic effects you want from a PED.

Prenisolone is a steroidal anti inflammatory, like Dexamethasone ...i issue it to kids with croup throat and old people with chronic obstructive airway disease...also effective for chest infections that aren't responding to antibiotics alone.
It plays havoc with the blood sugar, it doesn't have anabolic qualities and it promotes weight gain through water retention...things that are of little to zero use to an athlete...a PED it is not....but according to clinic logic because it's from the family of meds known as steroidal anti inflammatories it must be a PED because...because...well I don't know why but I can only guess at the desperation of some in here to conflate any kind of medication used by an athlete to PED use.

Similar thing happened last year when Froome used a perfectly legal medication during a race, someone in here googled it, found out it can be used in veterinary medicine (most human drugs also have veterinary uses btw) and also stumbled across the family of drugs said medication belongs to...steroidal anti inflammatory meds...this then prompted said poster to display his stunning lack of understanding for all to see when he went on an embarrassing crusade peppering all his posts with lines like: 'Froome rides on horse steroids'....to the casual observer this may seem shocking but once you probe deeper (or work in healthcare) it just became laughable.

The typical definition of proof differs somewhat in here to what you'd hope to experience in a court of law or even just your workplace....classic case at the moment is the motors debate, a video or image showing a rider looking strong will be used as 'proof' of having a motor...erm, nope...a rider looking strong is just that, you can then speculate as to why that is (might be dope, might be a motor) but it ain't proof, not even close.
These thermal images at the moment show hot parts of a bike...suspicious?....of course, needs further investigation?...definitely....but proof of a motor?....no, can you see the motor?...no, what you can see is a suspiciously hot part of the bike, speculate as to why that is but shouting it from the rooftops that it's proof of a motor working it's dark magic and you look like a nut job, particularly while using assumptions to suppress any dissenting voices and counter arguments.

Anyway, this place is good amusement if a bit of an echo chamber at times.

 

[GreasyChain]

You'll be waiting a long time for bennotti to come up with anything even vaguely related to evidence. Froome must be on drugs because he is a professional cyclist. All professional cyclists take drugs. Therefore Froome takes drugs.

That's his entire case. The man's madder than Mad Jack McMad, winner of this year's Mr Madman competition.

Next time ask him about Froome having a motor in his frame. Laugh a second insanity that thread.

 

[The Hegelian]

The counter argument is compelling though, and it is this: read the Armstrong and Wiggins threads.

The dialectical pattern is precisely the same: skeptics making inferences based on historical and institutional knowledge (and these are, as you correctly point out, speculative at least to some degree). And fanboys defending based on one fundamental axiom ("show me the tangible evidence").

And that axiom is elevated to the position of immutable and unimpeachable proof - it destroys all speculation. Or so the fanboys think and reason.

But in some cases, positive evidence does actually arrive - usually via an accident of history. This is certainly the case in the Armstrong and Wiggins cases. And this tells us something critical: the speculative nature of skeptical inferences are indeed grounded in something more robust than mere fantasy and imagination.

If you wish to refute that, read through the Armstrong and Wiggins threads first. And answer me this: how did so many people 'guess' correctly?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re:

this great doper must have slipped up somewhere, just show me that's he had doped...everything is innuendo and guess work

Just like it was with Armstrong?

Zero failed tests? Check.
Connection to doping doctor? Check.
Suspicious backdated TUEs? Check.
Direct connection to the President of the UCI? Check.
Disease that helped him magically become the greatest cyclist of his generation? Check.
Best climber and best time trialler in the peloton at the same time? Check.
Bruyneel-esque DS? Check.
Dominant team that plows through the mountains seemingly unaffected? Check.

Quacks like a duck? Check.
Flagrant doper? Check.

 

[The Hegelian]

Also: the constant refrain "show me the proof" quite explicitly puts the burden of evidence on the skeptics.

That refrain may work if pro-cycling did not have a long, established and documented recent history of doping.

But because it **does** (beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt) have that history, the refrain looks a lot like either ignorance or denial of history. And therefore, there is nothing reasonable about it. If our historical knowledge (and it is **knowledge** not mere speculation) is included in these debates, then surely the burden of evidence falls upon the non-skeptics to establish how and when pro-cycling became clean.

There can perhaps be arguments made. That's your job here. Please give us evidence for how and when this happened. Was it 2009? Everyone just decided??

 

[deviant]

....and that's the problem with the clinic.

Black and white and no in between, I'm skeptical about most elite sportsmen across most sports but before I lump their achievements in with that of Armstrong I'd like proof, I think that's reasonable...saying that all cyclists dope because Armstrong isn't actually proof of anything, it shows that Armstrong doped and said poster has adopted the position of 'once bitten twice shy' which is fine for a personal point of view but it's not proof.

Because I'm not a tin foil hat wearing lunatic like some in here I get labeled a fan boy because that's all the zealots in here have to fall back on, it's black and white for them, great argument...i'm a fan of the sport in general, I like to see new things happening...liked seeing Armstrong come back from cancer (sadly we know how that ended), liked seeing Wiggins become the first Brit to win the TdF etc...if revelations come out about Wiggins and Froome then I'll happily revise down my opinions of said riders....Wiggins taking a corticoid via the legal and approved route of the TUE process isn't the same as someone testing positive for cocaine for example, they may both be performance enhancing but only one is illegal and against the rules....if it's within the rules I'm fine with it...don't like it?...then get the rules changed but sportsmen will always push the rules up to what is allowed, take aero designs in time trialling...every little advantage possible while remaining within the rules and to be honest I'd question the motivation and desire of an athlete if they aren't willing to push the boundaries in all areas to give themselves every chance of winning.

The other argument used on here, point to when cycling became clean!...isn't what people like me are saying, I think it's still dirty, however with tests now for EPO and the blood passport I do think it's harder to charge up like the guys in the 90s and 00s did, I don't believe we have riders pedaling around with 60% heamaticrit levels anymore but the motors speculation is the next area of interest as it effectively keeps riders themselves from testing positive in a traditional drug test so may be seen as 'safer' to the top guys, that said the humiliation and ridicule of being caught and having to be known as that 'cyclist'' who raced with a motor instead of his legs takes some getting over and I'm not sure said rider could rehabilitate themselves in the same way because if you've become dependent on a motor the last few seasons you're simply not going to be able to rejoin the climbing elite at that late stage in your career once your motor has been taken away...that said, I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Anyway, for the most part it's good fun in here, ignore the odd mad post like I read last night when someone insinuated that the runners in the 100m final last night had motors in their shoes...that's just bonkers and sadly part of the clinic make-up at the moment, seemingly the more outlandish and bizarre the accusation the more traction it seems to gain in here!