Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 951 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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??
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
....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!
 
All depends if you think burden of proof is placed on the prosecution or not. In a legal sense, burden of proof is always placed on the prosecution first. Therefore to say someone is guilty you need the evidence first, not those defending the accused. Plenty of people rob banks, doesn't mean you did, even if someone robbed a bank last week and he was your brother.
 
samhocking said:
All depends if you think burden of proof is placed on the prosecution or not. In a legal sense, burden of proof is always placed on the prosecution first. Therefore to say someone is guilty you need the evidence first, not those defending the accused. Plenty of people rob banks, doesn't mean you did, even if someone robbed a bank last week and he was your brother.
Alas, the problem - i.e. the cause of these debates - is a problem of knowledge and interpretation. Not law.

This is not a courtroom, no one is charged with anything, and no one on either side is framing anything with respect to the actual WADA code. Frankly I don't think anyone actually could, because it is exceedingly complex and requires specialist knowledge. If you've ever followed a case or read a verdict, you would understand how complex it actually is.

Skeptics about the cleanliness about particular athletes - thankfully - do not need to prosecute anything. They are not in the business of prosecution. They are in the business of interpretation and knowledge. Likewise non-skeptics. That is the domain for these kinds of conversations.

It is an out and out fantasy and pretense to imagine this as some kind of courtroom - and in the same move, choose to ignore the forms of historical, institutional and cultural knowledge which deeply shape suspicions. And worse: to do this and claim to be on the side of reason.

I personally think that there are good arguments to be made about 'cleaner' cycling. But: they must be made in this domain of historical, institutional, cultural knowledge.
 
Agreed, but social media and forum debate typically swaps over the burdon of proof because it shields the accuser because they already know there is no evidence to defend their idea or conspiracy from the second they think of it. It doesn't even require any research to make it, so immediate and why it's rife on social media. That's why law doesn't work this way because no claim could ever be resolved if it did.
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
This is not a courtroom, no one is charged with anything,
Which would be fine except that some of the more <edited by mods> members in here have posted some ludicrous statements about how athlete-x should be stripped of their titles or how coach-y should be thrown in jail etc...if you're going to go down the legal route of taking back winnings, stripping titles and putting people in jail then you need to provide evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

Saying that athlete-x doped because the sport is historically dirty just doesn't cut it when certain posters seem to want the police involved and legal sanctions against suspected cyclists....for light hearted internet speculation the 'evidence' usually thrown about in here is fine however.

Classic case is the parliamentary committee looking at Team Sky earlier this year, some in here wanted people sacked from their jobs, banned from the Tour, fined, jailed etc....all fine by me but you're going to have to do better than historical knowledge of the sport and association with dopers if you want to get people removed from their jobs, penalised financially and careers curtailed....

...if posters in here don't want to burden themselves with having to provide evidence and proof that would stand up in court then they should also think twice when screaming for sanctions against certain teams, athletes etc...if you want criminal level charges against people involved in doping then expect to have to provide evidence that stands the scrutiny of a criminal court.

You can't have it both ways.

By all means post videos of certain riders looking suspiciously strong in a TT, or on a hilly finish and add comments hinting at doping and 'not normal' performances...just don't expect anyone to act on those suspicions.
If you want to see legal level actions against dopers in sport you'll have to provide legal level evidence...simple isn't it really?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
rick james said:
DanielSong39 said:
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
Here we have the proof of your trolling.

You take 2 lines out of lots and say if this is the proof!

I gave so many examples which in a court of law, would get Froome hung!

Circumstantial evidence is permissible in a court of law.

I mean the example, alone, of Froome aged 26 going from grupetto to GT podium in 2 weeks is evidence of doping!

His excuses for that jump in performance have never been proven when asked how come he went from lowly domestique to team leader in 2 weeks!

But fans cant answer it anymore than Froome has, because the answer is doping/motor cheating. End of.

rickjames and all sky fans have to answer the questions of how did Froome win 4 TdFs, when he showed no GT potential ever till aged 26 when his team was trying to get rid of him?

Till that is answered with proofs, Froome is a doper.

The answers till now have been nothing short of pish!

So yes, trolling.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
This is not a courtroom, no one is charged with anything,
<<<snipped>>>>>

If you want to see legal level actions against dopers in sport you'll have to provide legal level evidence...simple isn't it really?
Maybe you forgot there is no legal requirements in a cycling forum.

But all the evidence, i must repeat ad nauseum, is circumstantial evidence and that is considered in law courts.

I think all the evidence that points to Froome as a doper would get him convicted, as to date he has not shown anything that could be construed as a talented GT rider who never got a chance till he was 26!
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
samhocking said:
Agreed, but social media and forum debate typically swaps over the burdon of proof because it shields the accuser because they already know there is no evidence to defend their idea or conspiracy from the second they think of it. It doesn't even require any research to make it, so immediate and why it's rife on social media. That's why law doesn't work this way because no claim could ever be resolved if it did.
Pish!

Whether Froome doped with PEDs, a motor or both is not a conspiracy.

This sport has shat on those now accusing that the sport must demonstrate its cleanliness and yet it has poured nothing but scorn of those fans!!

So to come in here and point fingers at fans who go back to the 70s, 80s and 90s and belittle them is well out of order!

Those fans have seen it all and seen that the culture to dope and those who enable that culture are still there enabling it.

Conspiracy, yeah sure, you wish!
 
deviant said:
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.
You must not read too much, because prednisolone is a PED. If it was not, why would healthy riders take it? Why is it on the banned list except for TUE's?
There are several former riders with admitted doping past who will tell you it is performance enhancing.
 
Benotti69 said:
rick james said:
DanielSong39 said:
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
Here we have the proof of your trolling.

You take 2 lines out of lots and say if this is the proof!

I gave so many examples which in a court of law, would get Froome hung!

Circumstantial evidence is permissible in a court of law.

I mean the example, alone, of Froome aged 26 going from grupetto to GT podium in 2 weeks is evidence of doping!

His excuses for that jump in performance have never been proven when asked how come he went from lowly domestique to team leader in 2 weeks!

But fans cant answer it anymore than Froome has, because the answer is doping/motor cheating. End of.

rickjames and all sky fans have to answer the questions of how did Froome win 4 TdFs, when he showed no GT potential ever till aged 26 when his team was trying to get rid of him?

Till that is answered with proofs, Froome is a doper.

The answers till now have been nothing short of pish!

So yes, trolling.

So where is this proof?
 
Re: Re:

Saint Unix said:
rick james said:
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.
That's is quite a web but again it's guess work and innuendo
 
And there we have the problem. As long as the Sky fans keep labelling facts as "guess work and innuendo" there will never be a constructive discussion on the matter. In your supposed "non-kangaroo court", can you just sit and throw away evidence willy-nilly on the basis of it not fitting your own agenda?
 
Dec 18, 2013
241
0
0
Benotti melting down hard, lol.

...also the classic 'Sky fans' insult for good measure and to suppress any dissenting opinions, love it.

Sky got rid of JTL for suspicious blood values, if they were as filth and dirty as some in here think wouldn't they cover it up or get uncle Brian to sweep it away?...there's no consistent coherent argument in the clinic...Sky are dirty because they're winning seems to about all there is, brilliant logic...Sky are corrupt because the current president of the UCI is British etc..then a rider fails the blood passport inspection and gets the flick from Sky....eh?...what happened to the clinic theory about Sky being a protected team and having Cookson looking after them!?....when you look at some of the drivel being spouted in here it is wildly contradictory and that's why it's easy to dismiss a lot of the nonsense in here and wait for failed tests, witness statements etc to out the dirty riders instead.
 
Stop the accusations of trolling please. We consider it trolling in and of itself and if it continues we'll have to deal with it.

Post not poster as well, attacking the poster and not the post will be considered baiting and will also have to be dealt with.
 
deviant said:
Benotti melting down hard, lol.

...also the classic 'Sky fans' insult for good measure and to suppress any dissenting opinions, love it.

Sky got rid of JTL for suspicious blood values, if they were as filth and dirty as some in here think wouldn't they cover it up or get uncle Brian to sweep it away?...there's no consistent coherent argument in the clinic...Sky are dirty because they're winning seems to about all there is, brilliant logic...Sky are corrupt because the current president of the UCI is British etc..then a rider fails the blood passport inspection and gets the flick from Sky....eh?...what happened to the clinic theory about Sky being a protected team and having Cookson looking after them!?....when you look at some of the drivel being spouted in here it is wildly contradictory and that's why it's easy to dismiss a lot of the nonsense in here and wait for failed tests, witness statements etc to out the dirty riders instead.
Spot on.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

King Boonen said:
Stop the accusations of trolling please. We consider it trolling in and of itself and if it continues we'll have to deal with it.

Post not poster as well, attacking the poster and not the post will be considered baiting and will also have to be dealt with.
Pretty pointless though to just let this thread be clogged by James and a few others continuously asking "where is the proof".
What is the point?

Also, the whole discussion deviant and Hegelian are having has been held tons of times previously.
Is there really a need to go there again? And again?
Don t let me stop you, but just saying it's annoyingly repetitive.

Imo very simples: stop asking for proof. It contributes nothing to this thread other than invoking pointless discussions about what "proof" is and who carries the burden. Sure its interesting, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that James are genuinely interested in it. It's one ear in, other ear out.

All fwiw, imo and my2cents.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Re:

Saint Unix said:
And there we have the problem. As long as the Sky fans keep labelling facts as "guess work and innuendo" there will never be a constructive discussion on the matter. In your supposed "non-kangaroo court", can you just sit and throw away evidence willy-nilly on the basis of it not fitting your own agenda?
Bingo.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
deviant said:
Benotti melting down hard, lol.

...also the classic 'Sky fans' insult for good measure and to suppress any dissenting opinions, love it.

Sky got rid of JTL for suspicious blood values, if they were as filth and dirty as some in here think wouldn't they cover it up or get uncle Brian to sweep it away?...there's no consistent coherent argument in the clinic...Sky are dirty because they're winning seems to about all there is, brilliant logic...Sky are corrupt because the current president of the UCI is British etc..then a rider fails the blood passport inspection and gets the flick from Sky....eh?...what happened to the clinic theory about Sky being a protected team and having Cookson looking after them!?....when you look at some of the drivel being spouted in here it is wildly contradictory and that's why it's easy to dismiss a lot of the nonsense in here and wait for failed tests, witness statements etc to out the dirty riders instead.
Revisionism.

McQuaid released those values.

Again, a post that ignore all the points relevant to Froome and goes off topic.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
2
0
Re:

rick james said:
You've yet to show me proof Froome is dirty so hung in court is a bit over the top don't you think, maybe in your kangaroo court but not in the real world
In the real world, hahahahahahahahahahaha, point to someone in the real world who won the TdF clean!!! :lol:

No one has showed the world how Froome went from hanging on to motorbikes, crashing, pushing team mates to a podium never mind 4 TdFs.
 
Sep 15, 2016
230
0
0
deviant said:
Benotti melting down hard, lol.

...also the classic 'Sky fans' insult for good measure and to suppress any dissenting opinions, love it.

Sky got rid of JTL for suspicious blood values, if they were as filth and dirty as some in here think wouldn't they cover it up or get uncle Brian to sweep it away?...there's no consistent coherent argument in the clinic...Sky are dirty because they're winning seems to about all there is, brilliant logic...Sky are corrupt because the current president of the UCI is British etc..then a rider fails the blood passport inspection and gets the flick from Sky....eh?...what happened to the clinic theory about Sky being a protected team and having Cookson looking after them!?....when you look at some of the drivel being spouted in here it is wildly contradictory and that's why it's easy to dismiss a lot of the nonsense in here and wait for failed tests, witness statements etc to out the dirty riders instead.
Sky didnt' get rid of JTL tough, he was caught for abnormal blood values during the 2012 WC and sky waited for him to be suspended in 2014 to get rid of him. It does not pain them in a good light, because in that case they were either turning a blind eye on his doping, or their internal control procedures are rubbish.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
rick james said:
You've yet to show me proof Froome is dirty so hung in court is a bit over the top don't you think, maybe in your kangaroo court but not in the real world
In the real world, hahahahahahahahahahaha, point to someone in the real world who won the TdF clean!!! :lol:

No one has showed the world how Froome went from hanging on to motorbikes, crashing, pushing team mates to a podium never mind 4 TdFs.

again that's not proof.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
rick james said:
So where is this proof?
One thing I absolutely love is data and data analysis because it gives you amazing new insights. First, let's start with a hypothetical question. Did Froome experience a transformation in 2011? And if so, can we quantify it?

Thanks to Pro Cycling Stats, we have a wealth of information covering his entire pro career. The first step is to define some metrics for our construct. After much deliberation I chose to analyze flat time trials that are not prologues. That's because time trials are the "race of truth" and only depend on the rider's effort and ability. I skipped uphill time trials and prologues to reduce the number of confounding factors. I also rejected an analysis of speed because it isn't internally consistent, is noisy, and is dependent on external factors.

Instead, the metrics I chose were percentile ranking within the peloton (i.e., finished in the top 20%) and relative speed to the winner expressed as seconds lost per kilometer. This reduces the dependence on time trial length.

So using these two measures I collected as much data as possible. http://www.procyclingstats.com/rider.php?id=140869 I won't lie, it took a while but I was bored...

I've lost the data, but I can remember the results if not the fine details. Basically, Froome went from consistently top 20% and lost 3-4 seconds per kilometer to a permanent shift to top 5% and a fraction of a second per kilometer. This shift happened in a roughly three week span in 2011. The distributions are quite tight with only one or two outliers in the data set. A t-test showed that p was some ridiculously low value which showed that the shift in the data was real.

Further analysis and making some reasonable assumptions, I estimated that Froome's FTP changed by approximately 15% in that short time frame.

Could there be an external factor which caused this change?

- Reduced CdA due to better position, etc? I concluded no, or at least not fully responsible because his climbing abilities changed at the same time and those aren't very reliant on CdA.

- Lost the fat? That doesn't work because flat time trials aren't reliant on power to weight, rather power to CdA.

- He increased his sustainable power? That fits the data quite well.

So now you have to look for reasonable ways to think of how he gained that power in such a short time frame. That would be pure speculation, but I've made up my mind. He's a dopity-dope-doper and it doesn't matter which cocktail of drugs or brand of motorbike he's using. I'm open to other explanations though... I just can't think of any reasonable ones.

And if you don't believe me, head on over to Pro Cycling Stats and start compiling the data for yourself. The data is open source and so was my compilation and analysis.

John Swanson
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Benotti69 said:
rick james said:
You've yet to show me proof Froome is dirty so hung in court is a bit over the top don't you think, maybe in your kangaroo court but not in the real world
In the real world, hahahahahahahahahahaha, point to someone in the real world who won the TdF clean!!! :lol:

No one has showed the world how Froome went from hanging on to motorbikes, crashing, pushing team mates to a podium never mind 4 TdFs.

again that's not proof.
Enough with the "proof".

There's thousands of other comments in this thread that give all the reasons why people think Chris Froome is doping. Sniper's right, we've done this before and it adds nothing to the conversation to ask for the same things that have been answered many times over before in this very thread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY