- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 58
- 22,580
Re: Re:
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.
yaco said:
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.
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re: Re:
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 said:
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.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 58
- 22,580
Re: Re:
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.
yaco said:
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.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 58
- 22,580
Re: Re:
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 said:
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.
Re:
John Swanson
That's still a question!? Geez, what more do they have to do before they're dodgy?kingjr said:
John Swanson
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
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 said:
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.
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
"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 said:
"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.
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.
- Aug 12, 2009
- 2,802
- 95
- 11,580
Re:
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
kingjr said:
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
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Re:
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.
kingjr said:
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.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 58
- 22,580
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
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
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".
Why can't a reasonably accurate estimate of body fat be made visually ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149764128@N08/shares/3aJEqn
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149764128@N08/shares/3aJEqn
rick james
BANNED
- Sep 2, 2014
- 7,677
- 110
- 12,680
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia 2023 Giro d’Italia, Stage 20: Tarvisio- Monte Lussari, 18.6km MTT- Started by Jumbo Visma Fan :)
- Replies: 910
-
Giro d'Italia 2023 Giro d'Italia, Stage 19: Longarone – Tre Cime di Lavaredo 183 km (Friday, May 26th)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 973
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2023, stage 16: Sabbio Chiese - Monte Bondone 203 km- Started by Red Rick
- Replies: 825
-
Giro d'Italia 2013, stage 18: Oderzo - Val Di Zoldo 161 km- Started by Red Rick
- Replies: 529
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2023, stage 21: Roma - Roma 126 km
- Started by Red Rick
- Replies: 185
-
Giro d'Italia 2023 Giro d'Italia, Stage 9: Savignano sul Rubicone – Cesena 35 km ITT (Sunday, May 14th)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 724
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Latest: The fridge in the blue trees
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram