Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Snafu352]

And I'm tired of the boundless idiots who continue to believe in fary tales. My "opinion" may indeed be valueless, but yours is full *** mate.

Thanks to you as well for reinforcing Alphabets illustration of my summary posted a couple of pages back.

I don't know if Froome is doping, it appears that you seem to believe that you do know this for sure, you hinted at possessing actual evidence that proved it or at least goes some way down that path.

What have you done with that alleged evidence?

 

[Ripper]

So no facts or hard data then just your amateur opinion based on tv pictures.

Froome might be doping, i don't know. I do know that comments such as yours don't help the cause of proving he is.

In all fairness, bike racing is sport and entertainment. Pro cycling is especially entertainment. Fans can demand pretty much whatever they want. This is a service market, not a f*cking court of law.

Oh, and nice trolling about picking apart one opinion about TV pics. Pretty much all the clinic posts I've seen calling out the transfroominator have commented on numerous concerns. The thread is full of them ... have a read

 

[Ripper]

Thanks to you as well for reinforcing Alphabets illustration of my summary posted a couple of pages back.

I don't know if Froome is doping, it appears that you seem to believe that you do know this for sure, you hinted at possessing actual evidence that proved it or at least goes some way down that path.

What have you done with that alleged evidence?

I am sure he is just getting it set up for you to send via email

 

[darwin553]

Who's "We" by the way? Always interesting when the group or mob majority is invoked to imply right .

Not to worry the use of the word "we" just assumes that the thread has an agenda that should be upheld and furthered and "we" all know what that agenda is

 

[Snafu352]

Well if Sky would give me the "hard" data then we could all decide. But they won't release it will they?

So I'm working on my trsuted eye of 20 years in cycling.

I say doping. 100%.

Brave man would say Froome is clean.

Seated attacking, just for fun!

So what say you to WADA getting that data as proposed by Brailsford?

Or does it have to be you that gets it for you to be satisfied?

I agree to claim Froome is clean is just as dodgy as the opposite but you don't see too many making that claim in the same fashion as the doping gang do.

 

[Snafu352]

Nobody is looking to string anybody up.

Really? Have you read the posts on this thread??

 

[Taxus4a]

Complete nonsense. This is exactly the same argument Lance fans used. Every single one were proven wrong.

If Sky wanted to assist in proving that they're clean, they'd be completely transparent with their numbers, data, etc. They wouldn't have hired Leinders.

What is happening here is blatantly obvious to all but the most willfully obtuse Sky fan.

But man, that is always to be like that. If you want to defend a clean or dirty situation, the arguments could be quite similar.
But the facts, are with Froome, and werent with Lance.
A lot of evidence then, no evidence now.

What is what you need to believe?

I guess, sky no winning

Then, I would say, I dont believe in this cycling, the team with more money is not the best... so, never finish.

 

[Red Lobster]

Not to worry the use of the word "we" just assumes that the thread has an agenda that should be upheld and furthered and "we" all know what that agenda is

Yeah, go ahead, tell me what I meant. I am sure you know better than I. I note you make this assertion without any PROOF. Hypocrite.

 

[Snafu352]

Not to worry the use of the word "we" just assumes that the thread has an agenda that should be upheld and furthered and "we" all know what that agenda is

Quite. A subtle point lost on some i feel.

 

[Red Lobster]

Quite. A subtle point lost on some i feel.

Please provide proof for this conclusion. Hard facts. Data.

 

[Snafu352]

I am sure he is just getting it set up for you to send via email

Useful, thanks.

Got anything of any substance to contribute?

 

[darwin553]

Yeah, go ahead, tell me what I meant. I am sure you know better than I. I note you make this assertion without any PROOF. Hypocrite.

Not sure I am qualified to speak other than for myself on here - can you help me?

 

[rhubroma]

Thanks to you as well for reinforcing Alphabets illustration of my summary posted a couple of pages back.

I don't know if Froome is doping, it appears that you seem to believe that you do know this for sure, you hinted at possessing actual evidence that proved it or at least goes some way down that path.

What have you done with that alleged evidence?

Well it's Top Secret silly.

 

[darwin553]

Well it's Top Secret silly.

Walsh has it but because of the British libel laws is held back from releasing it?

 

[Red Lobster]

Not sure I am qualified to speak other than for myself on here - can you help me?

Are you unable to comprehend the flow of the discussion or are you being deliberately obtuse? Serious question. Because speak for another is what you had just done.

 

[rhubroma]

Walsh has it but because of the British libel laws is held back from releasing it?

What this race is missing, dears, is Nibali. Only with the Kazak state's support would this race have in any way been a competition.

 

[the sceptic]

Back on topic

Will Dawgstrong catch Mollema today?

 

[Snafu352]

Please provide proof for this conclusion. Hard facts. Data.

Seems to have riled you. Perchance is that due to the observation being accurate?

 

[Cobblestones]

Well it's Top Secret silly.

Hey rhub, here's a thought. Get out the popcorn, kick up your feet, and enjoy the interns doing a clown show.

 

[darwin553]

Are you unable to comprehend the flow of the discussion or are you being deliberately obtuse? Serious question. Because speak for another is what you had just done.

I pretty sure you summed up what you believed to be the general consensus of the thread to begin with in terms of evidence through your use of the word "we" when you were trying to make a point. I was merely interpreting how you could come to that conclusion.

 

[rhubroma]

Hey rhub, here's a thought. Get out the popcorn, kick up your feet, and enjoy the interns doing a clown show.

Got it! Thanks I shall do that.

 

[darwin553]

What this race is missing, dears, is Nibali. Only with the Kazak state's support would this race have in any way been a competition.

I agree with this but Froome at the level he is at would still have Nibali's measure.

 

[Red Lobster]

I pretty sure you summed up what you believed to be the general consensus of the thread to begin with in terms of evidence through your use of the word "we" when you were trying to make a point. I was merely interpreting how you could come to that conclusion.

No, I explained above what I meant. Reading is fundamental.

 

[Red Lobster]

Seems to have riled you. Perchance is that due to the observation being accurate?

Yes, manifest idiocy gets under my skin. Sorry, it's a character flaw I need to work on.

 

[Snafu352]

Are you unable to comprehend the flow of the discussion or are you being deliberately obtuse? Serious question. Because speak for another is what you had just done.

Actually he did not speak for me, he addressed his response to me.

Your opening triade above is quite funny given that it exactly what you have done in it. Very impressive writing

Back to the Froome stuff, he might well be doping, why would delivering the team data to WADA be a bad thing?