Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[DirtyWorks]

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.

Thank you.

10 chars

 

[gooner]

Instead of analysing race routes and rider's form for the Giro, why don't someone give Brian a ring and leave us know who's he's going to leave win it.

Where is the protection for JTL? McQuaid doesn't see eye to eye with JV and we've had a Giro winner in Hesjedal and an LBL winner in Martin while he was still president. Are Garmin protected so?

Just because of instances with the UCI and Armstrong and Contador, some people like to see ghosts everywhere as a result.

This is a Froome thread and let's deal with what we have and not deflect it to some baseless gossip.

 

[red_flanders]

Well, Froome's name is in the thread title, so it's arguably a more useful contribution than a series of links about a completely different rider.

But, hell, let's not let facts rule a good yap.

It saddens me that someone has to say the following out loud, but I guess that's how far the level of discourse has dropped lately.

"If the UCI protected top, income-generating riders before, and there's a lot of evidence that they did, they are probably protecting top, income-generating riders now, which would certainly include Froome."

But anything to avoid discussing the obvious, right?

If you have an issue with my posts being off-topic, please report them instead of clogging the thread with such nonsense. Generally that's what I do, though obviously not always.

It does get tiresome pointing out the blatantly obvious. I thought people were smarter.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Just because of instances with the UCI and Armstrong and Contador, some people like to see ghosts everywhere as a result.

This is a Froome thread and let's deal with what we have and not deflect it to some baseless gossip.

Yes, let's just pretend the other actors in the sport have no influence on outcomes. LALALALALALALALA!!

So, that Chris Froome guy. Those are some pretty amazing results out of nowhere. Oh, I'm just talking about Romandie. How it's possible to go from sick, almost no racing, to podium in under a week?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Where is the protection for JTL?

Why does the UCI sanction retired riders, chase others all over the world banning them from teams, yet refuse to consider sanctions for other athletes.

It's one of the enduring mysteries of the UCI and a topic of another thread.

 

[gooner]

Yes, let's just pretend the other actors in the sport have no influence on outcomes. LALALALALALALALA!!

So, that Chris Froome guy. Those are some pretty amazing results out of nowhere. Oh, I'm just talking about Romandie. How it's possible to go from sick, almost no racing, to podium in under a week?

What "actors" that you know of, influenced Froome's win in Romandie?

 

[doolols]

"If the UCI protected top, income-generating riders before, and there's a lot of evidence that they did, they are probably protecting top, income-generating riders now, which would certainly include Froome."

Why does it follow? Hasn't there been a change at the top. The chattering classes on here will throw mud at Cookson being British, and Froome being 'British', and Cookson's son or something doing something or other at Sky ...

But, just because something happened before, doesn't mean it's going to happen again. Does it? Or does that spoil the narrative.

I seem to remember some Clinicians telling us that Sky are going to be winning everything, Sky train, UKPS, yada yada yada. Froome wins one race, and everybody's jumping up and down again.

*yawn*

 

[gooner]

Why does it follow? Hasn't there been a change at the top. The chattering classes on here will throw mud at Cookson being British, and Froome being 'British', and Cookson's son or something doing something or other at Sky ...

But, just because something happened before, doesn't mean it's going to happen again. Does it? Or does that spoil the narrative.

I seem to remember some Clinicians telling us that Sky are going to be winning everything, Sky train, UKPS, yada yada yada. Froome wins one race, and everybody's jumping up and down again.

*yawn*

Bingo.

...

 

[The Hitch]

You have a problem with what some people allegedly said, take it to them, don't use it as an excuse to generalize everyone then whinge over the thread we are trying to have a discussion in.

 

[red_flanders]

Why does it follow? Hasn't there been a change at the top. The chattering classes on here will throw mud at Cookson being British, and Froome being 'British', and Cookson's son or something doing something or other at Sky ...

But, just because something happened before, doesn't mean it's going to happen again. Does it? Or does that spoil the narrative.

I seem to remember some Clinicians telling us that Sky are going to be winning everything, Sky train, UKPS, yada yada yada. Froome wins one race, and everybody's jumping up and down again.

*yawn*

I was answering the (what I thought incredibly dumb) question of how the discussion was on topic.

It's fine if you don't subscribe to the idea that nothing has changed. It's not fine to act like it's off-topic, which you haven't (explicitly) done (yet), but others have.

Because I guess either reading comprehension is a challenge or the agenda clogs the synapses.

 

[gooner]

It saddens me that someone has to say the following out loud, but I guess that's how far the level of discourse has dropped lately.

"If the UCI protected top, income-generating riders before, and there's a lot of evidence that they did, they are probably protecting top, income-generating riders now, which would certainly include Froome."

But anything to avoid discussing the obvious, right?

If you have an issue with my posts being off-topic, please report them instead of clogging the thread with such nonsense. Generally that's what I do, though obviously not always.

It does get tiresome pointing out the blatantly obvious. I thought people were smarter.

Again you're assuming that Cookson is the same as Hein/McQuaid. You have a posting style which isn't respective to an alternate opinion and it's within posters rights to query on your point that Cookson is similar to the other two. You're more than entitled to say that just as much as I am now with questioning you on this very point that you brought forward. If you're saying top riders are protected now, what about Hesjedal and Martin's big wins when McQuaid doesn't like JV. Or does this only apply to Froome and Sky?

I think you forget Verbiest has been removed and there's a few new vice presidents brought in by the changes of Cookson. McQuaid's buddies, Roche and Kelly have also been booted out after he left.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Again you're assuming that Cookson is the same as Hein/McQuaid. You have a posting style which isn't respective to an alternate opinion and it's within posters rights to query on your point that Cookson is similar to other two. If you're saying top riders are protected now, what about Hesjedal and Martin's big wins when McQuaid doesn't like JV. Or does this only apply to Froome and Sky?

I think you forget Verbiest has been removed and there's a few new vice presidents brought in by the changes of Cookson. McQuaid's buddies, Roche and Kelly have also been booted out after he left.

Just curious - really quickly - did JV tell you McQuaid doesn't like him, or was it McQuaid himself who said it?

One of those people gains mucho traction on what he says if the claim is perceived as true.

The video of the phonecall with Hein Verbruggen annoyed at JV boils down to Hein threatening JV with cessation of their "arrangement". Given McQuaid and Hein were pretty much puppet and puppet master, I'd put any speculation of McQuaid -- JV angst on the back burner. Especially if your source is JV himself.

 

[martinvickers]

Last time i looked RevSaysNo, the UCI does not have more powers than police forces.

In which case they can't do much protecting, can they.


Get your f***ing story straight, for f***s sake! All powerful protectors, suddenly next step they're weak asses who have no powers to do anything.

Ridiculous trying to have it both ways. But typical of you.

 

[martinvickers]

umm major iq fail or what.

When the UCI protection does work, you never hear about it.

When it doesn't you do.

In which case, why is the protection so Sh!te at the very top of the sport? Who's being protected? the 46th finisher?

And you wanna talk IQ fails....

So you list the riders for which it hasn't work, since you have their names, and then proudly declare that 100% of riders who get UCI protection ended up busted.

lol

That's not even a strawman. That's just an outright lie. NO-ONE claimed that. In fact, it makes no f**ing sense for someone unconvinced that such protection even exists to say all 'protected riders' got protection. You just made it up - an outright lie. Utter circular bollox.

lol...as you like to sneer.

 

[red_flanders]

The question isn't who they busted. It's who they protected. So yapping that it wasn't the UCI busting is irrelevant. That fact remains, the so-called protection sucked.

This is either blatant trolling or you have so little information about what happened during the USADA episode (and several others) that you need to step out of the conversation.

The UCI did everything in it's power to block the USADA investigation and prosecution of those involved. However, it had no jurisdiction to block anything, despite repeated attempts, so then resorted to endless slagging of the proceedings in the press. Their PR attacks convinced a whole lot of the blinders crew. A wholly corrupt set of actions, which shone a bright light on the UCI, and certainly gave the appearance that they were trying to hide quite a bit more than we already knew.

Combine that with several testimonies about UCI collusion with riders from other riders, with the fact that we know they tried to suppress the Contador positive as well as more than one Armstrong positive. We know they have had information that riders were doping and warned them, not making those facts public.

Then you have to realize what that it's about 99.99% likely that what we know is simply the tip of the iceberg. What else have they done? What are they doing now? Nothing? Full transparency and and end to the corruption? Seems unlikely.

The fact remains that they have at many turns fought off positive tests and colluded with riders for YEARS before the collusion was brought to light. They actively attacked the one ADA who sought to actually fulfill their charter.

<rhetorical>Do you think that all magically disappeared?</rhetorical>

It's like people come on this site and actively try and re-write the history of what's happened. Whether it's ignorance, agenda, trolling or all three I can't say, but it should be stopped.

IMO.

 

[martinvickers]

It saddens me that someone has to say the following out loud, but I guess that's how far the level of discourse has dropped lately.

"If the UCI protected top, income-generating riders before, and there's a lot of evidence that they did, they are probably protecting top, income-generating riders now, which would certainly include Froome."

No there's not. That is simply complete hyperbole. There's sizeable evidence they went easy on Armstrong - specifically Hein. There is some evidence that they were less than frank on Contador, though he was got in the end. That's two riders. Two.

But anything to avoid discussing the obvious, right?

Anything to keep on topic, Red.

 

[red_flanders]

Again you're assuming that Cookson is the same as Hein/McQuaid.

No.

You missed it AGAIN. I'm simply stating the obvious, that that there is a legitimate discussion to be had on the topic with regard to Froome. Because some folks want to suppress that discussion. Get it?

I don't know what Cookson is actually all about, but from past UCI behavior, I trust no one in that organization. He might be legitimately good for the UCI but hasn't proved it yet. There are serious questions of conflict of interest with him and British Cycling. Questions. To discuss. Which directly deal with Froome and Sky.

 

[red_flanders]

We get it. You want to lie about what happened so that you can act like discussion the UCI and Sky/Froome is off-topic.

You want to stop it? Report the posts you find off-topic. Your BS isn't going to stop anyone.

What a load of thread-clogging tripe.

 

[The Hitch]

In which case, why is the protection so Sh!te at the very top of the sport? Who's being protected? the 46th finisher?

And you wanna talk IQ fails....

Lets see, a guy who failed a test for Cortisone in 1999 and for EPO in 2001, in the one sport that is associated with doping, would not only continue unsanctioned in the sport for 13 years, but would over that time become one of the greatest sports superstars of all time and transcend his discipline in a way arguably no athlete in history has done.

Seems me and you have different ideas of what "Sh!te protection" is.

 

[martinvickers]

This is either blatant trolling or you have so little information about what happened during the USADA episode (and several others) that you need to step out of the conversation.

Right, we're going to try this gently, at first.

Disagreeing with you is not trolling. Tough.

THinking you are talking sh!te is NOT trolling. Tough

Thinking you get to decide what conversations I'm in is delusional. Tough.

The UCI did everything in it's power to block the USADA investigation and prosecution of those involved. However, it had no jurisdiction to block anything, despite repeated attempts, so then resorted to endless slagging of the proceedings in the press. Their PR attacks convinced a whole lot of the blinders crew. A wholly corrupt set of actions, which shone a bright light on the UCI, and certainly gave the appearance that they were trying to hide quite a bit more than we already knew.

Indeed it did. And FAILED. Don't you get that. FAILED. They couldn't protect the biggest, richest fish in the sea - in fact, it even cost the would be protector his job, in the end.

Combine that with several testimonies about UCI collusion with riders from other riders, with the fact that we know they tried to suppress the Contador positive as well as more than one Armstrong positive. We know they have had information that riders were doping and warned them, not making those facts public.

Then you have to realize what that it's about 99.99% likely that what we know is simply the tip of the iceberg. What else have they done? What are they doing now? Nothing? Full transparency and and end to the corruption? Seems unlikely.

did you use an abacus for your made up number? Pocket calculator? Sticks and pebbles?

The fact remains that they have at many turns fought off positive tests and colluded with riders for YEARS before the collusion was brought to light. They actively attacked the one ADA who sought to actually fulfill their charter.

<rhetorical>Do you think that all magically disappeared?</rhetorical>

It's like people come on this site and actively try and re-write the history of what's happened.

So for all the following Grand Tour Winners :

Bjarne Riis
Jan Ullrich
Marco Pantani
Abraham Olano
Stefano Garzelli
Roberto Heras
Paolo Savoldelli
Aitor González
Roberto Heras
Paolo Savoldelli
Ivan Basso
Alexander Vinokourov
Danilo Di Luca
Alberto Contador
Alejandro Valverde


What happened their protection? Did the check not clear? Was UCI on annual vacation? Because it seems they either got 'no' protection, or they got 'sh!te' protection.

Whether it's ignorance, agenda, trolling or all three I can't say, but it should be stopped.

IMO.

And we all know how highly we value your opinion, both for its rigour and importance.

 

[martinvickers]

Lets see, a guy who failed a test for Cortisone in 1999 and for EPO in 2001, in the one sport that is associated with doping, would not only continue unsanctioned in the sport for 13 years, but would over that time become one of the greatest sports superstars of all time and transcend his discipline in a way arguably no athlete in history has done.

Seems me and you have different ideas of what "Sh!te protection" is.

I think Mohammad ali might have something to say about your last line, but never mind.

Let's see how his last batch of court cases go, before we hand Armstrong a victory lap. And this is the one guy I entirely agree they did try to protect.

 

[gooner]

Lets see, a guy who failed a test for Cortisone in 1999 and for EPO in 2001, in the one sport that is associated with doping, would not only continue unsanctioned in the sport for 13 years, but would over that time become one of the greatest sports superstars of all time and transcend his discipline in a way arguably no athlete in history has done.

Seems me and you have different ideas of what "Sh!te protection" is.

There was big protection but it also had it flaws.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/uci-admits-armstrong-forms-came-from-them-10624/

 

[The Hitch]

Let's see how his last batch of court cases go, before we hand Armstrong a victory lap.

I don't see how cases in 2014 are going to change the fact that Lance's career survived an EPO positive for 11 years.

 

[gooner]

No.

You missed it AGAIN. I'm simply stating the obvious, that that there is a legitimate discussion to be had on the topic with regard to Froome. Because some folks want to suppress that discussion. Get it?

I don't know what Cookson is actually all about, but from past UCI behavior, I trust no one in that organization. He might be legitimately good for the UCI but hasn't proved it yet. There are serious questions of conflict of interest with him and British Cycling. Questions. To discuss. Which directly deal with Froome and Sky.

Yes, past behaviour. There have been changes since and this past is where the sins of McQuaid and Verbruggen belong, not Cookson.

Anyone who goes into the role as president will more than likely come from a cycling federation and have their backing.

No problem in discussing this but I do when it's said that because of riders being protected in the past, it's now definitely happening with Froome and Sky. That's not discussing it, in fact it's a statement made to try and portray it as evidence on this topic. Evidence that isn't even known in relation to Froome. DirtyWorks is the king of this.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The suspicion is Landis was busted on Armstrongs say so

That is so far feteched... It simply makes no sense. If the UCI protected riders other than LA and AC, why the hell not Landis?
A positive TdF winner is a lose-lose-lose scenario. Lose for ASO (another TdF fiasco), lose for UCI (another nail into the doping ridden cycling world, something that had to be prevented at all costs after the Puerto affair), and lose for Landis.