SundayRider said:Froome has a permanent tailwind - all that hot air coming from the Sky PR machine.
*chuckles*
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
SundayRider said:Froome has a permanent tailwind - all that hot air coming from the Sky PR machine.
yespatterns said:There needs to be a poll --- worst form; froome or gaudin. BTW I'm one of those idiots who take vacation days for the epic mountain stages. worth it for the tifosi alone.
rainman said:As long as your not one of those dudes that run beside riders. And Froome is the most ungainly rider, Gaudin was simply born in the wrong era.
Franklin said:It's not simply caused because he's skinny, it's also his leg's angle and mostly caused by the construcion of the shoe combined with his shoe cover being the wrong size to accomodate the heel section..
filipo said:but they can't get a proper size for their undisputed leader's shoe covers?
good point.filipo said:My point: We're supposed to believe that Sky is superior in all ways, they've thought of everything -- but they can't get a proper size for their undisputed leader's shoe covers? If sleeping with a special pillow = marginal gains, then having crap shoe covers = marginal losses.
pastronef said:cycling fans are strange.
that July race: I cannot think about NOT watching the Tour de France. any rider could win, go full genius, suck, fall, troll us, loose chunk of time, flip us the bird etc...
DirtyWorks said:The whole point of this sub-forum is that there are riders chosen to win. What we know for sure is the UCI doesn't enforce positives and ASO is having meetings with teams, altering courses to suit riders and more.
What we don't know is how and why riders/teams are chosen.
armchairclimber said:Really? Blimey. That would involve so many co-conspirators and teams happy to just make up the numbers whilst spending vast sums of money that the mind boggles.
DirtyWorks said:What has changed besides the names?
ebandit said:so we could just insert froomeys name in any headline we read such as
'rider x dopes' just because it's convenient for you
............right!
Mark L
DirtyWorks said:Hmm. Well, I better ignore this:
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf
and this: http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/13/lance-armstrong-bought-win-roberto-gaggioli/
and this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488
and this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ends-money-link-lance-armstrong-team/1842201/
What has changed besides the names?
armchairclimber said:Firstly, you are off topic (as is much of this thread).
Secondly, the simple response to your post is that Armstrong has been busted.
Thirdly, there is some way betweeen suspecting certain riders of doping...even of suspecting that various agencies are turning a blind eye, and actually believing that A WINNER is picked from the pack and given the victory. There's a race. Some are good. Some are better. Some cheat. That's the way it is. I don't think there's a master plan....more a retrospective "flippin heck, can't have this hitting the front page".
ANYWAY, FROOME. Dirty Works seems to think he is a pre-ordained winner. I think he looks joint favourite with Contador myself.
red_flanders said:Dirty Works seems to think that the UCI and powers that be have a record of protecting certain riders and it's not restricted to Armstrong, and wonders why should we trust any unbelievable performances which have always turned out to be...well...unbelievable.
Wondering why people don't seem to get that from the thread. Seemed obvious.
armchairclimber said:Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust
I mean, I could go on and on...
If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
armchairclimber said:Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust
I mean, I could go on and on...
If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
red_flanders said:So instead of addressing/examining/discussing the litany of incriminating evidence contained in those links, you whine about Froome and cast unfounded insults at the messenger.
Fantastic contribution. We're all better for reading it.
Benotti69 said:UCI didn't bust Rasmussen or Ullrich either.
So UCI bust Vino and Landis. Now that really is a good strike rate, methinketh, never mind UCI hiding Contador's positive till a decent journalist spilled the beans.
UCI protection works and works very well.
Nathan12 said:If Froome is found to be doping, serves a ban and then returns, what will be people's perception of him? If he then rides with the grupetto, does this validate the likes of Contador and Valverde as genuine talents, doped or not?
martinvickers said:The question isn't who they busted. It's who they protected.
<snipped trolling>
It didn't work for those riders, did it?
2007 Tour de France doping cases, French prosecutors wanted to start a legal case against Vinokourov, Mayo and Moreni, and requested the UCI to hand over the doping samples. The UCI refused to give them, and in May 2011 the investigation was stopped
Benotti69 said:The suspicion is Landis was busted on Armstrongs say so, so that would illustrate the UCI at work, protecting Armstrong, hell, UCI were still trying to protect Armstrong when he no longer had a UCI licence.
armchairclimber said:Armstrong = bust
Landis = bust
Rasmussen = bust
Hincapie = bust
Leipheimer - bust
Vino = bust
Ullrich = bust
I mean, I could go on and on...
If that's UCI protection, you can keep it. They may be **** at detection and sanction but they are pretty **** at protection.
Every person in prison committed a crime. Therefore every person who ever committed a crime ended up in prison.