Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Jacques (7 ch)]

'You can't win the Tour on mineral water'

'You'd have to be an imbecile or hypocrite to imagine that a professional cyclist who rides 235 days a year can hold himself together without stimulants'

 

[sniper]

'I dope because everybody else does, too'

 

[Tienus]

Ask Anquetil what he had taken for a race and he would tell you, he said. He never hid the facts or looked away, as other riders did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/remembering-jacques-anquetil/

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Coppi admitted doping he used it and said that's nothing wrong in using doping as well Anquetil , THESE are people YOU COULD BE A FAN OF , not froome

Long after their careers finished.

not at all Anquetil never hide his doping use while froome wants to make people look like stupid by winning 2 CONSECUTIVE GT CLEAN bread and water please , that's a lot of stupid people there , but i'm not if you want to believe you are free but i think that men have a brain and they have to use it

Show me proof that Anquetil publically admitted to doping during his career.

There's a LOT of proof, I'm sure you can use google. Anquetil freely admitted to doping, frequently. As did Coppi.

 

[samhocking]

Re:

Ask Anquetil what he had taken for a race and he would tell you, he said. He never hid the facts or looked away, as other riders did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/remembering-jacques-anquetil/

Well doping was only illegal in his last 3 years with Bic, so hardly hid from any facts, because the facts couldn't get him into trouble anyway until 1967 onwards.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Ask Anquetil what he had taken for a race and he would tell you, he said. He never hid the facts or looked away, as other riders did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/remembering-jacques-anquetil/

Well doping was only illegal in his last 3 years with Bic, so hardly hid from any facts, because the facts couldn't get him into trouble anyway until 1967 onwards.

So, the problem with the sport is not Anquetil's (or others) attitude to doping, but that this culture and attitude to doping has not changed.

 

[samhocking]

It changed in terms of omerta being required after 1967 to protect yourself both individually and collectively I guess. Clearly riders are no longer able to dope freely and openly like Anquetil and others could across any substance at any given moment. It's clearly more about staying ahead of the testers today and throttling anything else back to practices that don't get you banned for 2 - 4 years.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Ask Anquetil what he had taken for a race and he would tell you, he said. He never hid the facts or looked away, as other riders did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/remembering-jacques-anquetil/

Well doping was only illegal in his last 3 years with Bic, so hardly hid from any facts, because the facts couldn't get him into trouble anyway until 1967 onwards.

Again we come to the issue which this board has never addressed. The definition of doping. For me doping is when you take products that are on the banned list or if you have suspicious blood level values that started with haemocrit levels which then morphed into biological passports. Because an athlete takes 101 substances which are not on the BANNED list is not doping. As Sam pointed out there was no such thing as doping before the mid to late 60's in cycling.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Ask Anquetil what he had taken for a race and he would tell you, he said. He never hid the facts or looked away, as other riders did.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/remembering-jacques-anquetil/

Well doping was only illegal in his last 3 years with Bic, so hardly hid from any facts, because the facts couldn't get him into trouble anyway until 1967 onwards.

So, the problem with the sport is not Anquetil's (or others) attitude to doping, but that this culture and attitude to doping has not changed.

The attitude will never change. It may be reined back but that is all.

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

 

[veganrob]

Or he'll go swimming in the badzilla pond.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

 

[Huapango]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

If one were to think Froome's transformation has a lot to do with UCI/WADA leadershipship looking the other way, then things might be too risky for Froome in the future. So, rather than having to hang onto vehicles to get up HC climbs, he may just find a convenient excuse before the season begins.

 

[Robert5091]

Sky will want him ready for the TdF, so same routines as normal except some pavé practice.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

If one were to think Froome's transformation has a lot to do with UCI/WADA leadershipship looking the other way, then things might be too risky for Froome in the future. So, rather than having to hang onto vehicles to get up HC climbs, he may just find a convenient excuse before the season begins.

Hopefully, I'm not still the only one not getting this. And I'm no Froome fan! But I am sort of wanting to know your thinking a bit more. Do expand a bit more buddy

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

If one were to think Froome's transformation has a lot to do with UCI/WADA leadershipship looking the other way, then things might be too risky for Froome in the future. So, rather than having to hang onto vehicles to get up HC climbs, he may just find a convenient excuse before the season begins.

Hopefully, I'm not still the only one not getting this. And I'm no Froome fan! But I am sort of wanting to know your thinking a bit more. Do expand a bit more buddy

I assume the thinking is that without a sympathetic cookson in post there'll be more scrutiny on him.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

If one were to think Froome's transformation has a lot to do with UCI/WADA leadershipship looking the other way, then things might be too risky for Froome in the future. So, rather than having to hang onto vehicles to get up HC climbs, he may just find a convenient excuse before the season begins.

Hopefully, I'm not still the only one not getting this. And I'm no Froome fan! But I am sort of wanting to know your thinking a bit more. Do expand a bit more buddy

I assume the thinking is that without a sympathetic cookson in post there'll be more scrutiny on him.

god i hope so

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Does anyone here think Froome is going to suffer an offseason "injury"?

Why would we think that?

If one were to think Froome's transformation has a lot to do with UCI/WADA leadershipship looking the other way, then things might be too risky for Froome in the future. So, rather than having to hang onto vehicles to get up HC climbs, he may just find a convenient excuse before the season begins.

Hopefully, I'm not still the only one not getting this. And I'm no Froome fan! But I am sort of wanting to know your thinking a bit more. Do expand a bit more buddy

I assume the thinking is that without a sympathetic cookson in post there'll be more scrutiny on him.

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

the only examples are him wanting to ban tramadol (and the immediate thought of the clinic members that JUST Sky abuses it) and race radios (same thing as tramadol)

there are no other examples for the moment. him being less sympathetic is still a wish, not a fact.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

the only examples are him wanting to ban tramadol (and the immediate thought of the clinic members that JUST Sky abuses it) and race radios (same thing as tramadol)

there are no other examples for the moment. him being less sympathetic is still a wish, not a fact.

Surely both of those are merely him being ASO's puppet? ASO want MPCC guidelines enacted as rules, ASO want race radios banned. Seeing them as attacks specifically aimed at Sky seems ... well, like wishful thinking.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

the only examples are him wanting to ban tramadol (and the immediate thought of the clinic members that JUST Sky abuses it) and race radios (same thing as tramadol)

there are no other examples for the moment. him being less sympathetic is still a wish, not a fact.

Surely both of those are merely him being ASO's puppet? ASO want MPCC guidelines enacted as rules, ASO want race radios banned. Seeing them as attacks specifically aimed at Sky seems ... well, like wishful thinking.

this

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

the only examples are him wanting to ban tramadol (and the immediate thought of the clinic members that JUST Sky abuses it) and race radios (same thing as tramadol)

there are no other examples for the moment. him being less sympathetic is still a wish, not a fact.

He has also proposed a ban on corticosteroids. Relevant to Sky given their sham TUE history and abuse of corticosteroids out of competition.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

This is actually my thoughts as well. Leppartient seems less sympathetic to BC and Sky than Cookson and McQuaid, if so Badzhilla Boy and co. might face a touch more scrutiny.

Do you have any examples of this?

the only examples are him wanting to ban tramadol (and the immediate thought of the clinic members that JUST Sky abuses it) and race radios (same thing as tramadol)

there are no other examples for the moment. him being less sympathetic is still a wish, not a fact.

He has also proposed a ban on corticosteroids. Relevant to Sky given their sham TUE history and abuse of corticosteroids out of competition.

agree about the TUE, but corticos out of competition can be abused and are abused by many (see riders thinness)

 

[telencefalus]

it's OVER