Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

This coming from a 36 year old who prior to turning 30 had never shown anything of note... Froome on the other hand has had a linear progression 2011 onwards (and before hand had some decent results)...

I am ignoring the other ridiculous stuff for once and just pointing out the massive idiocy in this.

Froome before 25:

not won a single pro race
best result a forth place at Herald Sun Tour (one place in front of Richie Porte )

Rodriguez before 25:

won a stage at Vuelta
wore the Vuelta leader jersey
won a stage at Paris - Nice
finished top 10 in Tirreno GC
top 3 in spanish one day races and stage races

That's what I hate the most. I used to believe that doping in cycling is just lifitng very talented guys up severeal percent like "in a clean field, the same guys would compete for the win, just a bit slower". But with Froome it is so obvious that, out of the blue, you can turn guys with Gruppetto-Talent into dominators. So the new way to succeed in this sport is not having talent, but being a good responder to dope.

Not new - see Armstrong. There was discussion here recently where someone posed the question about how many wins Armstrong would have in a clean field. Out of a resonably long thread, I don't think there was one person supporting that he would have won much other than the odd single-day event. But the rest of your post stands as read.

Not new, see Indurain, Riis, Pantani, etc etc

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

First time for a while I've actually liked Froome's riding, ballsy move, showing some attitude earlier too. Loved Purito's win, top chap.

Doping? Maybe but surely the thing a cycling face would want to talk about are the crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time. So many abandons, hope they are fighting right soon.

hahahaha still on the fence?

Never change Jim.

I just give riders the benefit of the doubt, and don't hate any of them. I don't know enough to pass judgement on them, and have no interest in part of an internet lynch mob.

does that sound like a future tour winner to you Jimmy? Not even Lord Brailsford had any faith in the Dawg.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

First time for a while I've actually liked Froome's riding, ballsy move, showing some attitude earlier too. Loved Purito's win, top chap.

Doping? Maybe but surely the thing a cycling face would want to talk about are the crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time. So many abandons, hope they are fighting right soon.

hahahaha still on the fence?

Never change Jim.

I just give riders the benefit of the doubt, and don't hate any of them. I don't know enough to pass judgement on them, and have no interest in part of an internet lynch mob.

does that sound like a future tour winner to you Jimmy? Not even Lord Brailsford had any faith in the Dawg.

When you add in the fact that Froome was overlooked for the Giro and the Tour as well it's pretty damning

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

First time for a while I've actually liked Froome's riding, ballsy move, showing some attitude earlier too. Loved Purito's win, top chap.

Doping? Maybe but surely the thing a cycling face would want to talk about are the crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time. So many abandons, hope they are fighting right soon.

hahahaha still on the fence?

Never change Jim.

I just give riders the benefit of the doubt, and don't hate any of them. I don't know enough to pass judgement on them, and have no interest in part of an internet lynch mob.

does that sound like a future tour winner to you Jimmy? Not even Lord Brailsford had any faith in the Dawg.

When you add in the fact that Froome was overlooked for the Giro and the Tour as well it's pretty damning

Suspicious transformation, yep. Damning? No. Prove anything? No. Got anything else that suggests he dopes?.... I doubt it.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Doping? Maybe but surely the thing a cycling face would want to talk about are the crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time. So many abandons, hope they are fighting right soon.

So why are you only posting in the clinic?

My apologies officer Netserk

You are the one acting all Taliban. You come into a doping forum and tell people they shouldn't be talking about doping. Instead, we should talk about "crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time"

If you want to talk about those things go ahead, none of us are stopping you.

Please, if you don't want to talk about doping, just leave us alone and let us discuss it. We aren't disturbing you so why must you come in here and try to stop us from having the discussions we want? Don't be a bully.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

Suspicious transformation, yep. Damning? No. Prove anything? No. Got anything else that suggests he dopes?.... I doubt it.

Yes! Fresh blood.

 

[The_Cheech]

Re: Re:

Suspicious transformation, yep. Damning? No. Prove anything? No. Got anything else that suggests he dopes?.... I doubt it.

Yes! Fresh blood.

He won't submit to testing so...

I wonder if he's going to pull the I-forgot-about-the-test-today card while in yellow.

 

[Tommy79]

Re: Re:

Suspicious transformation, yep. Damning? No. Prove anything? No. Got anything else that suggests he dopes?.... I doubt it.

Yes! Fresh blood.

Sooo.... you don't have anything else then?

 

[SeriousSam]

You mean a positive, or 500 negatives and a concession live on Oprah? Not at the moment, no.

 

[BYOP88]

Oh wait you need to have a positive before you're actually a doper? I guess Valverde is clean then.

 

[Tommy79]

Re:

You mean a positive, or 500 negatives and a concession live on Oprah? Not at the moment, no.

Well... I find the performance based "evidence" very unconvincing. The argument that he is beating "known dopers" ignores the fact that the "known dopers" are either guys that got busted years ago and could well be clean now or guys who are doping just to be in the world tour. The TUE and missed tests being used to suggest something more sinister are very desperate accusations, 2 of each over his sky career is it? Not unreasonable.

I know you can't argue he is clean without some big holes in the argument, I can't explain the transformation and I am not comfortable with the ex dopers and Leinders at sky. But on the flip side any scenario where he is doping is equally far fetched sounding, you end up with such a massive conspiracy that you sound like you should be wearing a tinfoil hat... some wonder drug that he responds to better than anyone else (because everyone else is on it too) and it's being covered up by all of UK sport, the UCI and 100's of journalists are turning a blind eye even though it's a career making scoop.

The longer we go with no actual evidence or a whistle blower makes it more likely that he is clean. So that's where I'm at. I'll let you get back to slapping each others backs....

 

[BYOP88]

Re:

not this nonsense again. Why can't mods just get rid of these obvious trolls?

It's the Armstrong era all over again. I miss those days

 

[Tommy79]

Sorry guys, I read this forum as I think that if anything real cropped up then it would be on here first... promised myself I wouldn't engage with you on this but 99% of your accusations are just so very stupid I cracked.

 

[DBotero]

Re: Re:

not this nonsense again. Why can't mods just get rid of these obvious trolls?

It's the Armstrong era all over again. I miss those days

It's too bad a legendary poster like the hog got banned, but I still have to scroll past all these garbage bot posts every day.

Make it a legendary troll and you got it right

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Sorry guys

That's ok. We forgive you. Goodbye now.

 

[PremierAndrew]

What about the bilharzia? While I don't believe Froome is clean, you can hardly ignore the fact that that had a major effect on his career pre-2011. Then throw in the fact he possibly turned to doping to save his career, and suddenly you've got a massively transformed rider, who is now competing on a level playing field with all the other dopers eg Cobo. Now he's got Contador Nibali and Quintana. Do you honestly believe any of those guys are clean either?

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

What about the bilharzia? While I don't believe Froome is clean, you can hardly ignore the fact that that had a major effect on his career pre-2011. Then throw in the fact he possibly turned to doping to save his career, and suddenly you've got a massively transformed rider, who is now competing on a level playing field with all the other dopers eg Cobo. Now he's got Contador Nibali and Quintana. Do you honestly believe any of those guys are clean either?

Froome got cleared of Badzilla in june 2011, Brailsford still didn't want him on the vuelta team or give him a new contract.

 

[Tommy79]

Re:

What about the bilharzia? While I don't believe Froome is clean, you can hardly ignore the fact that that had a major effect on his career pre-2011. Then throw in the fact he possibly turned to doping to save his career, and suddenly you've got a massively transformed rider, who is now competing on a level playing field with all the other dopers eg Cobo. Now he's got Contador Nibali and Quintana. Do you honestly believe any of those guys are clean either?

Again, I'm not buying performance based evidence that they are doping. Hope they are [currently - in the case on Contador] clean yes. I do think the Astana problems were more about the Kazakh side of the team.

And yeah, if any of them were busted I would have to reassess my view on the others.

 

[SeriousSam]

Well, if testing positive or admissions are the only facts that you count as evidence of doping, there really is no need to read the clinic. You can stick to the Daily Mail or the Sun, they're going to report it should Froome test positive.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re: Re:

Doping? Maybe but surely the thing a cycling face would want to talk about are the crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time. So many abandons, hope they are fighting right soon.

So why are you only posting in the clinic?

My apologies officer Netserk

You are the one acting all Taliban. You come into a doping forum and tell people they shouldn't be talking about doping. Instead, we should talk about "crashes and the injuries and sheer balls theses riders displY doing that all the time"

If you want to talk about those things go ahead, none of us are stopping you.

Please, if you don't want to talk about doping, just leave us alone and let us discuss it. We aren't disturbing you so why must you come in here and try to stop us from having the discussions we want? Don't be a bully.

Takes one to know one I guess.

 

[Tommy79]

Re:

Well, if testing positive or admissions are the only facts that you count as evidence of doping, there really is no need to read the clinic. You can stick to the Daily Mail or the Sun, they're going to report it should Froome test positive.

I think a whistle blower would be the most likely way for it to come out if they were doping and the UCI were covering it up. I won't stoop to reading the Daily Mail, it's full of nearly as much bile and disregard for facts as the "everyone is doping" brigade on here!

 

[spalco]

It's amazing to think how good Froome would be if he wasn't doing this au naturel.

 

[SeriousSam]

Froome's power looks to be insane. The first MTF will be a savage beatdown like in 2013

 

[the sceptic]

Froome is easily the biggest fraud in cycling history.

 

[spalco]

Re:

Froome is easily the biggest fraud in cycling history.

Not really, he hasn't won nearly enough yet to qualify.