Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[TailWindHome]

Couldn't agree more. How Contadope gets such a free pass on this site is beyond me.

He has the natural advantage of not being Froome and has lovely brown eyes.

 

[TailWindHome]

independent fully funded anti doping testing and not just a few tests here or there but rigorous OOC testing every month..

A diversion I know.....but where will the funding come from for that?

 

[gooner]

By "free pass" do you mean the way in which most people acknowledge that, of course he doped at many points in his career and may still be doping now, but he seems like a very personable individual, carries himself with class, rides with extraordinary style, races to win, is highly entertaining, displays a genuine passion for his sport...and has a great victory salute?

Granville, I have to disagree with you here.

Contador has come out with a lot of nonsense which has insulted the intelligence of any decent fan of the sport. Putting his 7 fingers up to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner, saying he has always surrounded himself with people that were against doping and telling Kimmage in a press conference that he has consistently spoken out against doping in the past. He has played the rubbish clean card on many occasions. That day crossing the line in Madrid to win the Vuelta was one of the biggest #### you I seen by a rider to the sport in recent years.

Can you imagine the reaction if Froome did something to the level of above? The same Contador fans who love his "stylish riding" and "natural talent" would be hammerring him left, right and centre over it.

I don't see why the level of a rider's riding style, be it exciting or boring, should come into judging one guy against another in terms of doping.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Granville, I have to disagree with you here.

Contador has come out with a lot of nonsense which has insulted the intelligence of any decent fan of the sport. Putting his 7 fingers up to signal himself as a 7 time GT winner, saying he has always surrounded himself with people that were against doping and telling Kimmage in a press conference that he has consistently spoken out against doping in the past. He has played the rubbish clean card on many occasions. That day crossing the line in Madrid to win the Vuelta was one of the biggest #### you I seen by a rider to the sport in recent years.

Oh not again about the 7 finger salute. FFS. He's ****ed off he lost two of his biggest victories. Get over it.

Can you imagine the reaction if Froome did something to the level of above?

Uhm, perhaps I'm missing something, but hasn't Froome spouted nonsense about his cleanliness a billion times?

 

[LaFlorecita]

He has the natural advantage of not being Froome and has lovely brown eyes.

Yes I could not have said it better myself

 

[sniper]

one main difference between dopador and chrisTUEpher froome is that the latter still has a huge fan base in full denial, whilst the former does not.
helping those fans pull their heads out of the sand is one of the Clinic's raisons d'etre.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Couldn't agree more. How Contadope gets such a free pass on this site is beyond me.

He doesn't, really. I think most if not all posters on here think Contador is a doper. We've just been over it so many times. It's no use discussing it anymore until something new comes out.

PS - I am sometimes confused by the lack of discussion about him, I must say. It's not like I care, though.

 

[roundabout]

Is there something new that came out about Froome between his Tour crash and today to merit hundreds of posts?

 

[Netserk]

Funny how when you say their is no comparison because someone had a sanction for doping and their is no relevent evidence against the other, the fanboys of the convictred doper seem to get upset

Nevermind it Cyclical News and you have to love one rider and hate another because you are convinced they are a donkey or alien or whatever derogatory term you wanna use

The great thing is real life don't dwell in the clinic and clinic logic can be flawed

How exactly is he a convicted doper?

AFAIK Bassons isn't a convicted doper, so a ban alone doesn't cut it. What's more according to CAS it was more likely that he had Clen in his blood because of a contaminated supplement than he got it through a BB.

 

[gooner]

Oh not again about the 7 finger salute. FFS. He's ****ed off he lost two of his biggest victories. Get over it.



Uhm, perhaps I'm missing something, but hasn't Froome spouted nonsense about his cleanliness a billion times?

Yes, he has but it's the contrasting reaction to both from you and others which is the point.

 

[del1962]

How exactly is he a convicted doper?

AFAIK Bassons isn't a convicted doper, so a ban alone doesn't cut it. What's more according to CAS it was more likely that he had Clen in his blood because of a contaminated supplement than he got it through a BB.

You can always be relied on to bring in the Basson's irrelevance

 

[TailWindHome]

I don't see why the level of a rider's riding style, be it exciting or boring, should come into judging one guy against another in terms of doping.

If one believes that all or at least the vast, vast majority of pro cyclists dope or have doped, then doping is no longer a relevant factor in which rider you like


See also Pantani

 

[Benotti69]

A diversion I know.....but where will the funding come from for that?

Vaughters think the teams should pay 1 million each year for it.

It can come from plenty of places. Why ask the how? and not the why not?

Why dont teams, riders, race organisers, federations and sponsors all put into keeping the sport clean pot?

Till i see a real independent anti doping effort i will not be believing anything the sport is telling me, because until then it is too easy too dope. So it too easy and we know those who work in the sport have all doped or enabled doping with a few exceptions and are unrepentant and will not stay clean because someone says "please don't dope".

 

[TailWindHome]

Vaughters think the teams should pay 1 million each year for it.

It can come from plenty of places. Why ask the how? and not the why not?

Why dont teams, riders, race organisers, federations and sponsors all put into keeping the sport clean pot?

Till i see a real independent anti doping effort i will not be believing anything the sport is telling me, because until then it is too easy too dope. So it too easy and we know those who work in the sport have all doped or enabled doping with a few exceptions and are unrepentant and will not stay clean because someone says "please don't dope".

I think you've missed slightly the point of my question

If funding comes from the sources in bold --- would it still be seen as 'fully independent'?

 

[Benotti69]

I think you've missed slightly the point of my question

If funding comes from the sources in bold --- would it still be seen as 'fully independent'?

That was what Vaughters thinks. You got a question about that, ask him.

Where should the money come from? IOC, that is not independent! Tax payers? The independence comes from the people who are credible and do not have to answer to anyone but the anti doping rules and procedures.

Riders pay for their licence to race. Does that mean they can tell UCI or ASO to only have races in the dry, shorter, more prize money....nope they have very little say on what the money they pay for their licence goes. They get to vote for officials on federations.

Plenty of ways to fund independent anti doping. No one seems to want too. No one seems to want a clean sport and ensure it is fair, honest and transparent. Then ask yourself if that is the environment riders compete in why would they race clean?

 

[bigcog]

By "free pass" do you mean the way in which most people acknowledge that, of course he doped at many points in his career and may still be doping now, but he seems like a very personable individual, carries himself with class, rides with extraordinary style, races to win, is highly entertaining, displays a genuine passion for his sport...and has a great victory salute?

You've just proved my point exactly So what if he tops the polls in the xfactor he's still a convicted doper which is the whole point of this forum. Laughable.

 

[SeriousSam]

In which case you can never know anything. Not even a confession (the confessor might be lying)

A positive probability of error doesn't preclude something from being knowledge.

It seems you haven't understood what the evidential value of a positive test is. They don't prove someone is a doper. When there's a positive, a prohibited substance is, with high probability, shown to be in in someone's body exceeding some threshold. Yes, only with high probability. Not 100%. Tests are imperfect. It must come as a shock to you but they often use two tests for that very reason, to reduce the probability of error. Some probability of error always remains. Despite all that, we are allowed to say we know the substance is in his body, because we don't have naive views of what knowledge is.

Ok, so the substance is there. Is this strong evidence of doping? We need to ask how likely it is such a substance entered someone's body if they took that substance to gain a performance advantage. Very likely, obviously. But we also need to ask how likely it is it would be there otherwise. This depends on what alternative explanation they can come up with. The evidential strength of the positive depends on this ratio of likelihoods. The authorities considered Impey's story, and Mick's, sufficiently more plausible than Contador's to result in different sanctions.

The same type of reasoning applies to other facts, all of which may be evidence. How likely is a pro rider to to beat Pantani's Alpe ascent if he takes PEDs? How likely is a pro rider to beat Pantani's Alpe ascent if he's clean? Much, much less likely. This is why doing the Alpe faster than Pantani is strong evidence of doping. It can be stronger evidence of doping than testing positive.

All this means that positives from drug tests, though usually very convincing evidence of doping, are not categorically different from other facts that are evidence of doping. If one rider has a positive and another doesn't, we can compare them, contrary to what has been asserted in this thread. It could even be the case that the rider that hasn't tested positive is more likely to have doped than the 'convicted doper'.

 

[The Hitch]

You've just proved my point exactly So what if he tops the polls in the xfactor he's still a convicted doper which is the whole point of this forum. Laughable.

What is the point of the forum?

 

[Granville57]

How Contadope gets such a free pass on this site is beyond me.

By "free pass" do you mean the way in which most people acknowledge that, of course he doped at many points in his career and may still be doping now, but he seems like a very personable individual, carries himself with class, rides with extraordinary style, races to win, is highly entertaining, displays a genuine passion for his sport...and has a great victory salute?

Granville, I have to disagree with you here.
<snip>
I don't see why the level of a rider's riding style, be it exciting or boring, should come into judging one guy against another in terms of doping.

But it does, so I don't think this is an issue of agreement or not. I'm not justifying it, rather simply offering an opinion as to why it happens

One thing to clarify: By "most people" I was referring to the use of the phrase "on this site" as implying a majority opinion.

What I really meant is that some simply like Contador's image as a cyclist (and that could be defined in many different ways) and therefore aren't dissuaded by a possible doping past, even if some of them acknowledge that it may be quite extensive.

It's not that they are judging anyone "in terms of doping." If a rider is liked (for any of number of reasons) the doping is forgiven. If a rider is disliked (for any number of reasons) the doping card provides excellent ammunition to direct against devout supporters of said rider.

These debates will usually not burden themselves with fairness, or even rational thinking. And I'm not here to suggest that they should or shouldn't. These are just my observations of what I've seen transpire.

 

[Granville57]

You've just proved my point exactly So what if he tops the polls in the xfactor he's still a convicted doper which is the whole point of this forum. Laughable.

What is "the whole point of this forum"?

[Edit]

What is the point of the forum?

Yeah, what The Hitch said.

(I really shouldn't post before reading through the thread. But the Vuelta has mountains...and they're approaching.)

 

[the sceptic]

looks like the TUE came through.

 

[The Hitch]

There goes the fan myth that froome must be clean because he gets worse during gts.

 

[bigcog]

What is "the whole point of this forum"?

[Edit]

Yeah, what The Hitch said.

(I really shouldn't post before reading through the thread. But the Vuelta has mountains...and they're approaching.)

To discuss dopers and contadope is sure as sh*t one of them

 

[bigcog]

There goes the fan myth that froome must be clean because he gets worse during gts.

Slightly different scenario here though or had you conveniently misplaced that fact up your ... ?

 

[Bexon30]

After watching the last few stages where Froome "paces himself" to the top, I'm fairly confident he's about to smash the opposition at some point for a minute or more. He may just take red yet.