Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Gotta love Barry Ryan who never missed the opportunity to needle Froome in any of his articles - Latest one is in today's CN when writing about the
Giro presentation in Israel - Writes 'Froome made a belated and surprising transition to a GC Contender' - Great work by Barry.

But it's true, is it not?

Transition from what though. Its not like wiggins who was at least good at something - TP and being fringe top 10 in time trials.

Froome went from being good at absolutely nothing to being the best rider ever.

Thats not a transition from 1 skill to another skill. Its a metamorphosis from 0 talent to way too much talent.

You take it up with Barry Ryan - You suggest he use the word metamorphis.

Just correcting anyone here who would like to use euphemisms about what Froome's change actually entailed.

The difference between a natural improvement and what Froome underwent is like the difference between a grenade and a hydrogen bomb.

 

[kingjr]

Re: Re:

lol..I've never said they haven't be doping, all I keep saying is you known as much as me and that's nothing

are you a mind reader?

How would you know what Bennoti does or does not know?

You're not a mind reader either, but deep down, you still know he's right about that.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Gotta love Barry Ryan who never missed the opportunity to needle Froome in any of his articles - Latest one is in today's CN when writing about the
Giro presentation in Israel - Writes 'Froome made a belated and surprising transition to a GC Contender' - Great work by Barry.

But it's true, is it not?

Transition from what though. Its not like wiggins who was at least good at something - TP and being fringe top 10 in time trials.

Froome went from being good at absolutely nothing to being the best rider ever.

Thats not a transition from 1 skill to another skill. Its a metamorphosis from 0 talent to way too much talent.

You take it up with Barry Ryan - You suggest he use the word metamorphis.

Just correcting anyone here who would like to use euphemisms about what Froome's change actually entailed.

The difference between a natural improvement and what Froome underwent is like the difference between a grenade and a hydrogen bomb.

I am certain most people can draw an inference from Ryan's choice of words - It doesn't need t be spelt out !

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

lol..I've never said they haven't be doping, all I keep saying is you known as much as me and that's nothing

are you a mind reader?

How would you know what Bennoti does or does not know?

You're not a mind reader either, but deep down, you still know he's right about that.

When we know so much about a riders massive transformation in 3 weeks, the lies told to explain that, the lack of transparency by the rider and his team, the sport, its history, the culture, the pathetic testing, the UCI's lack of will to police, etc it is not hard to know.

rickjames posts to obfuscate, but again that is part of the knowing, when so called fans refuse to see a riders massive transformation in 3 weeks, the lies told to explain that, the lack of transparency by the rider and his team, the sport, its history, the culture, the pathetic testing, the UCI's lack of will to police, etc they are extremely dim or paid to post, just like in early days of the forum when it was Armstrong's paying public strategies.

 

[kingjr]

That's an educated guess.

 

[veganrob]

Maybe, but that's much better than blind, ignorant trolling.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

But it's true, is it not?

Transition from what though. Its not like wiggins who was at least good at something - TP and being fringe top 10 in time trials.

Froome went from being good at absolutely nothing to being the best rider ever.

Thats not a transition from 1 skill to another skill. Its a metamorphosis from 0 talent to way too much talent.

You take it up with Barry Ryan - You suggest he use the word metamorphis.

Just correcting anyone here who would like to use euphemisms about what Froome's change actually entailed.

The difference between a natural improvement and what Froome underwent is like the difference between a grenade and a hydrogen bomb.

I am certain most people can draw an inference from Ryan's choice of words - It doesn't need t be spelt out !

You seem obsessed with throwing this Ryan person into every reply, but it doesn't matter what he did or did not say, my point stays the same - there is a clear effort from the part of anyone remotely sympathetic to Sky to play down what Froome underwent.

Because everyone knows that if one aknowledges that Froome went from viewing 33rd on Alpe as a lifetime acheivement, to what we have seen over the last 6 years, then one is acknowledging its not real.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

lol..I've never said they haven't be doping, all I keep saying is you known as much as me and that's nothing

are you a mind reader?

How would you know what Bennoti does or does not know?

You're not a mind reader either, but deep down, you still know he's right about that.

If there was a hard maths question when I was at school and the most intelligent kid understood it and I didnt I wouldnt stand up and shout "you know nothing, you know as much as me!!!!".

Contrary to the Sky fan wet dream of people's knowledge and intelligence being directly proportionate to how much airtime they get on BBC sport, different people can have different levels of intelligence.

Some people are more intelligent, some people are less. Some people know more some people less. Some people are better able to remember things etc. Everyone is different.

Just because you still haven't worked out the equation of whether Sky are dodgy or not, doesn't mean others haven't been more successful.

 

[kingjr]

Try harder Hitch. Whether Sky is dodgy or not is not the question.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Try harder Hitch. Whether Sky is dodgy or not is not the question.

That's still a question!? Geez, what more do they have to do before they're dodgy?

John Swanson

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Try harder Hitch. Whether Sky is dodgy or not is not the question.

Is it natural or not.

Bennoti seems to have worked an answer out. You seem to be sat at your desk unable to figure it out.

 

[kingjr]

Indeed he has. But as of today no one can confirm whether it's the right answer.

A pity that this is not a maths question. I'd much prefer if it was.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Indeed he has. But as of today no one can confirm whether it's the right answer.

A pity that this is not a maths question. I'd much prefer if it was.

The % is 100.

How do we know this you ask?

Elementary. The answers are there in front of you. Testing way out of date, underfunded and run by UCI. Culture of doping/cheating has not changed. The same enablers of cheating/doping are still in the sport. Omerta still a part of the sport. Dopers who dont spit in the soup welcomed back. Dopers who talk ostracised.

See it is as easy as 1+1 = 2.

 

[kingjr]

In your mind, yes.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

In your mind, yes.

"Testing way out of date, underfunded and run by UCI. Culture of doping/cheating has not changed. The same enablers of cheating/doping are still in the sport. Omerta still a part of the sport. Dopers who dont spit in the soup welcomed back. Dopers who talk ostracised."

Prove me wrong..........if you can.

 

[kingjr]

There is no way for me to do that. The statements you make can hardly be disproven, altough the extent to which they are true now as the yere say 20 or 30 years ago can and has been discussed at great length, with no definitive results. At any rate, no matter how easy it were for one to dope, if one doesn't need to dope to reach a desired results, there is a good chance that they won't.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

There is no way for me to do that. The statements you make can hardly be disproven, altough the extent to which they are true now as the yere say 20 or 30 years ago can and has been discussed at great length, with no definitive results. At any rate, no matter how easy it were for one to dope, if one doesn't need to dope to reach a desired results, there is a good chance that they won't.

yeah but to reiterate...this is pro cycling, and not just pro cycling, its GT cycling, and not just GT cycling its winning GTs, and not just winning GTs its dominating GTs and not just dominating GTs its dominating in a historical context.....so...throw in the mix that he used to be crap......then...well...if you can't do the math, as our american friends say....

although froome's not much good with number's either............10% aye right

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

There is no way for me to do that. The statements you make can hardly be disproven, altough the extent to which they are true now as the yere say 20 or 30 years ago can and has been discussed at great length, with no definitive results. At any rate, no matter how easy it were for one to dope, if one doesn't need to dope to reach a desired results, there is a good chance that they won't.

To prove testing is up to date and working would be easy. Show the figures of riders being tested very regularly at odd hours and the amount of money spent on testing, the best labs being used etc.....

To show that the culture has changed where doping/cheating is not acceptable would be easy as riders would be outspoken, riders would not hang off cars, hang on to bidons etc etc

To show that the enablers are being outed from the sport would be easy as we would be able to show teams no longer employing them.....

To show that the UCI were policing the sport again would be easy. Transparency would be the proof, not the shambles we get. Take the Jiffy bag incident. UCI have avoided it. CIRC report and its recommendations, ignored by UCI.

It is not hard. Simple, like 1,2 and 3.

So again the % is 100.

 

[The Hitch]

I'd say the chances of ftoome cheating are not quite 100%. But what are the odds that 2 *** riders from the same country both just happened to emerge from absolute mediocrity in road cycling to become tdf wizzards, just as a national cycling team was set up by a corrupt liar appartchik, surrounded by doping experts, doped up riders and doping enabling personnel. They did this while constantly deliberately lying about absolutely everything even when the truth would have been far easier than needlessly lying.

The odds of this happening May not be 0% but they aren't 50% either. Me I have it as likely as the chances that a gust of wind blowing through a scrap yard would assemble a jumbo jet. A near infinity of 0s after the decimal point before you get to a 1.

The idea that if you can't prove something it must be equally likely to be true or untrue is ridiculous

 

[purcell]

I fully expect in the next month or two that Chris Froome will suddenly discover a long lost French grandmother and apply for his French passport so that he can be come the "next great French Champion".

 

[adamfo]

Why can't a reasonably accurate estimate of body fat be made visually ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149764128@N08/shares/3aJEqn

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Why can't a reasonably accurate estimate of body fat be made visually ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149764128@N08/shares/3aJEqn

HR Giger would be proud!

 

[rick james]

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

 

[heart_attack_man]

Re:

I'd say the chances of ftoome cheating are not quite 100%. But what are the odds that 2 **** riders from the same country both just happened to emerge from absolute mediocrity in road cycling to become tdf wizzards, just as a national cycling team was set up by a corrupt liar appartchik, surrounded by doping experts, doped up riders and doping enabling personnel. They did this while constantly deliberately lying about absolutely everything even when the truth would have been far easier than needlessly lying.

The odds of this happening May not be 0% but they aren't 50% either. Me I have it as likely as the chances that a gust of wind blowing through a scrap yard would assemble a jumbo jet. A near infinity of 0s after the decimal point before you get to a 1.

The idea that if you can't prove something it must be equally likely to be true or untrue is ridiculous

Good post Hitch.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

LOL judging body fat by a picture....that's me convinced

I've had my body fat measured on three different occasions by three different labs...all three coming in at 10% plus or minus 0.1% - so i'm assuming (I think reasonably) that its a fair reflection

trust me...I look nothing like that..............

you don't need to be "convinced"......it merely adds yet another layer of unreality to the king of unreality

those with enquiring minds.......