Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

To the bolded, the only ex-dopers I have read who have come out in support of Froome seem to me to be motivated by an even worse form of opportunism than that which drives Jalabert. Since their only hope in still gaining some economic advantage lies in the narrative of a "changed" sport. It is even more spineless because they know what they say is utter BS, in an attempt to favorably condition public oppinion for their own standing.

Exactly! Any you dismiss their views on the basis of the motivation for them, which means that if you judge (as I do) Jalabert to have the same motivations then you have to dismiss his views too. It is called fairness and objectivity rather than confirmation bias.

I would dismiss Jalabert's statements if they were hogwash (to use Hothra's term). Psychological behavior should remind you how much "fairness" and "objectivity" is greatly compromised and the interprative problems this has caused. Here truth and disimulation go hand in hand, and there are times when one's lies reveal the very truth in what is said in other cases.That he is a hypocrite, in other words, leads me to conclude that I can take nothing he says about himself seriously, but this doesn't automatically render what he says about others hogwash. To me this stikes at the very issue of descernment, you yourself have implicitely accused others of lacking.

I've mentioned confirmation bias. I'm suggesting an approach to avoid it. Your position is akin to saying that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

 

[franic]

Re:

Unfortunately, cycling is still in a swirling vortex of denial and hypocrisy at every angle. Just because I think the British have been cheating doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that there isn't a huge chunk of hypocrisy from some of the accusers, be they people in the sport or amateur commentators on the internet. I think the relative silence over Jalabert's position as National French coach is just one example.

Sure, bring Team Sky down, why not...they are almost certainly cheating. But without an honest and unhypocritical appraisal of what is going on there would just be another Team Sky with a different national flag waiting in the wings. Let's face it, we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about waiting to take Sky's spot.

The problem is that we are seeing the same narrative of Cold War era when the Eastern block was massively doping its athletes and the US were doing nothing. It has been repeated during the US Postal Team era when Mayo and Hamilton were dopers because they were able to beat Armstrong during the Dauphine. It is repeated now when you say that Team Sky may be doping but the real evil are Astana and Tinkoff.

 

[gazr99]

Re:

What does the Dalai Lama say? Anybody seen him on Twitter? What about Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? These are the people the british media would listen to. They fit the narrative. Only people crowned as saints have the right to be right. Only angels need apply.

I'm sure if it was a French rider winning Jalabert would be praising the new Hinault

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

What does the Dalai Lama say? Anybody seen him on Twitter? What about Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? These are the people the british media would listen to. They fit the narrative. Only people crowned as saints have the right to be right. Only angels need apply.

I'm sure if it was a French rider winning Jalabert would be praising the new Hinault

So what? Jalabert may be biased in favour of Frenchmen, but that has very little to do with shadows behind Froome. Unless you want to resort to the exact same nationalistic arguments Armstrong used when he was winning

 

[difdauf]

Just to be sure. Is there at least one person here who knows what Jalabert said about Froome ?

It's funny to look people reproaching Jalabert to accuse without facts, while they don't know what he said.

 

[wendybnt]

Found this little gem from last year.
http://wts-coaching.com/train-for-letape-du-tour-on-the-french-riviera/

Apparently his doctor is testing randoms going for group rides, but can't be bothered getting numbers for his GT winning client. Seems legit.

Sorry, can't see a reference to any GT winning clients, other than a masseur.

The 'Lab testing' doctor is an ex-FDJ team doctor. Don't think they've won any GTs recently

 

[franic]

Just to be sure. Is there at least one person here who knows what Jalabert said about Froome ?

It's funny to look people reproaching Jalabert to accuse without facts, while they don't know what he said.

You can hear and read a translation at the beginning of ITV4 video

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, cycling is still in a swirling vortex of denial and hypocrisy at every angle. Just because I think the British have been cheating doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that there isn't a huge chunk of hypocrisy from some of the accusers, be they people in the sport or amateur commentators on the internet. I think the relative silence over Jalabert's position as National French coach is just one example.

Sure, bring Team Sky down, why not...they are almost certainly cheating. But without an honest and unhypocritical appraisal of what is going on there would just be another Team Sky with a different national flag waiting in the wings. Let's face it, we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about waiting to take Sky's spot.

The problem is that we are seeing the same narrative of Cold War era when the Eastern block was massively doping its athletes and the US were doing nothing. It has been repeated during the US Postal Team era when Mayo and Hamilton were dopers because they were able to beat Armstrong during the Dauphine. It is repeated now when you say that Team Sky may be doping but the real evil are Astana and Tinkoff.

That isn't what I said at all.

 

[Supimilian]

Found this little gem from last year.
http://wts-coaching.com/train-for-letape-du-tour-on-the-french-riviera/

Apparently his doctor is testing randoms going for group rides, but can't be bothered getting numbers for his GT winning client. Seems legit.

Sorry, can't see a reference to any GT winning clients, other than a masseur.

The 'Lab testing' doctor is an ex-FDJ team doctor. Don't think they've won any GTs recently

Nothing to see here, folks.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rep...ce=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

 

[saganftw]

if silence of the lambs taught as anything its that if you want to catch a doper you need another doper to give you clues...fly,fly,fly

 

[franic]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, cycling is still in a swirling vortex of denial and hypocrisy at every angle. Just because I think the British have been cheating doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that there isn't a huge chunk of hypocrisy from some of the accusers, be they people in the sport or amateur commentators on the internet. I think the relative silence over Jalabert's position as National French coach is just one example.

Sure, bring Team Sky down, why not...they are almost certainly cheating. But without an honest and unhypocritical appraisal of what is going on there would just be another Team Sky with a different national flag waiting in the wings. Let's face it, we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about waiting to take Sky's spot.

The problem is that we are seeing the same narrative of Cold War era when the Eastern block was massively doping its athletes and the US were doing nothing. It has been repeated during the US Postal Team era when Mayo and Hamilton were dopers because they were able to beat Armstrong during the Dauphine. It is repeated now when you say that Team Sky may be doping but the real evil are Astana and Tinkoff.

That isn't what I said at all.

Am I wrong or you just said "we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about”. It sounds a lot like “Yes, if Sky is doping they are doing it for good reasons. But look at those evil Russians/Kazakh”

 

[wendybnt]

Found this little gem from last year.
http://wts-coaching.com/train-for-letape-du-tour-on-the-french-riviera/

Apparently his doctor is testing randoms going for group rides, but can't be bothered getting numbers for his GT winning client. Seems legit.

Sorry, can't see a reference to any GT winning clients, other than a masseur.

The 'Lab testing' doctor is an ex-FDJ team doctor. Don't think they've won any GTs recently

Nothing to see here, folks.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rep...ce=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Ah, got it. Thanks.

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

Re:

By the way, doper Jalabert was the French National coach from 2009-2015.

Cleans

Selector, not coach. They are very different things, and he hasn't been in the role since 2013. It basically means he picked the riders for the WC teams. It's really a very minor role.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

What does the Dalai Lama say? Anybody seen him on Twitter? What about Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? These are the people the british media would listen to. They fit the narrative. Only people crowned as saints have the right to be right. Only angels need apply.

I'm sure if it was a French rider winning Jalabert would be praising the new Hinault

So what? Jalabert may be biased in favour of Frenchmen, but that has very little to do with shadows behind Froome. Unless you want to resort to the exact same nationalistic arguments Armstrong used when he was winning

My point was a retort to the comment of british media only listen to saints. Of course the majority of the media are going to support their national rider, it's pretty standard nowadays. But if found guilty they will drop on him like a ton of bricks, it's the way of the world

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

By the way, doper Jalabert was the French National coach from 2009-2015.

Cleans

Selector, not coach. They are very different things, and he hasn't been in the role since 2013. It basically means he picked the riders for the WC teams. It's really a very minor role.

Merci.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

Quite a takedown of Jalabert on ITV4 today. Good viewing.

That wouldn't be David Millar who only after 48 hours in a prison admitted his doping and even then only told them about the 3 vials they found. Hypocrites!

Given Jalabert's past EPO use...

Explain me something: if I’m found guilty of some financial violation (e.g. I am Bernard Madoff), would my suggestion be useful for authorities to tackle another financial crime?
What is deplorable in Jalabert’s affair is that he didn’t confirm his words, but having been a past EPO user is actually something that adds credibility (and competence) to his words.

Not necessarily, in this case the guy is a lying hypocrite who won't even cop to it despite his old samples testing positive, yes great "witness"..

 

[Stingray34]

Froome's 'I had to google this ketone-thingy' is textbook LA, 'I had to google this Acto-vegie thingy.'

Not saying the Ketone drink, legal or not, has weight; just the identical denial strategy.

BTW: Froome is ugly!

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Unfortunately, cycling is still in a swirling vortex of denial and hypocrisy at every angle. Just because I think the British have been cheating doesn't mean that I'm going to pretend that there isn't a huge chunk of hypocrisy from some of the accusers, be they people in the sport or amateur commentators on the internet. I think the relative silence over Jalabert's position as National French coach is just one example.

Sure, bring Team Sky down, why not...they are almost certainly cheating. But without an honest and unhypocritical appraisal of what is going on there would just be another Team Sky with a different national flag waiting in the wings. Let's face it, we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about waiting to take Sky's spot.

The problem is that we are seeing the same narrative of Cold War era when the Eastern block was massively doping its athletes and the US were doing nothing. It has been repeated during the US Postal Team era when Mayo and Hamilton were dopers because they were able to beat Armstrong during the Dauphine. It is repeated now when you say that Team Sky may be doping but the real evil are Astana and Tinkoff.

That isn't what I said at all.

Am I wrong or you just said "we've still got the Riis-born stinky Saxo and Vino's venal Astana just floating about”. It sounds a lot like “Yes, if Sky is doping they are doing it for good reasons. But look at those evil Russians/Kazakh”

Not quite sure how you came up with that interpretation. Voices in your head, maybe?

No, the implication of what I am saying is that there is a danger of history repeating itself. We've had the Festina debacle and cycling was clean for ever more afterwards after the rotten apple of Festina was expunged. Then we had Armstrong...immediately afterwards...in the supposedly clean era. In the interim between Armstrongs retirement and confession we had a bonus clean era post-Puerto. Then we had Armstrong's exposure and belated confession and now everything is clean again. </sarcasm>

What I am saying is that if we fixate on one team or person, be it Festina, Armstrong, Basso, or Sky we ignore the whole picture and the whole thing is destined to repeat itself just as it has done for nearly 20 years.

In other words, the problem is not Sky, the problem is cycling.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

By the way, doper Jalabert was the French National coach from 2009-2015.

Cleans

Selector, not coach. They are very different things, and he hasn't been in the role since 2013. It basically means he picked the riders for the WC teams. It's really a very minor role.

...and Geert Leinders was just at Sky to hand out paracetamol and sticking plasters

Still, old Laurent knew how to pick a winner

"Sous sa direction, la France a enlevé deux titres mondiaux chez les moins de 23 ans, avec Romain Sicard (2009) et Arnaud Démare (2011). L'an passé, Bryan Coquard a décroché la médaille d'argent du rendez-vous mondial."

http://www.rtl.fr/sport/laurent-jalabert-bernard-bourreau-lui-succede-a-la-tete-de-l-equipe-de-france-7763498174

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

What does the Dalai Lama say? Anybody seen him on Twitter? What about Mother Theresa? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? These are the people the british media would listen to. They fit the narrative. Only people crowned as saints have the right to be right. Only angels need apply.

Wiggins is ranked above all these people by the British media, at least the cycling one, when it comes to sainthood. I mean these people were cool, but the weren't British, were they?

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

Re: Re:

By the way, doper Jalabert was the French National coach from 2009-2015.

Cleans

Selector, not coach. They are very different things, and he hasn't been in the role since 2013. It basically means he picked the riders for the WC teams. It's really a very minor role.

...and Geert Leinders was just at Sky to hand out paracetamol and sticking plasters

Still, old Laurent knew how to pick a winner

"Sous sa direction, la France a enlevé deux titres mondiaux chez les moins de 23 ans, avec Romain Sicard (2009) et Arnaud Démare (2011). L'an passé, Bryan Coquard a décroché la médaille d'argent du rendez-vous mondial."

http://www.rtl.fr/sport/laurent-jalabert-bernard-bourreau-lui-succede-a-la-tete-de-l-equipe-de-france-7763498174

Almost. Except that quote is referring to his successor, Bernard Bourreau, the former France Under-23 coach who was in charge while France produced some of their best age group results. Honestly, there are many accusations you can level against Jalabert, but the fact he selected the riders for the World Championships for a few years really isn't relevant.

 

[romnom]

Re: Re:

Not necessarily, in this case the guy is a lying hypocrite who won't even cop to it despite his old samples testing positive, yes great "witness"..

To me the fun part about the guy is that he's clearly said something really out of character for him. And looking at the denials later hopes he hadn't. So while I wouldn't use him as a star witness for anything, the whole episode is quite amusing. When a guy with his record of denials slips into uncertainty it's probably worth noticing. Works for others too. Whenever people slip away from their usual roles it's much more interesting to hear what they are saying. If you look at Rasmussen what he's saying now is exactly the same he has been saying for years. Just like guys like Millar are staying true to their story.

 

[frenchfry]

At the same time I think Jalabert is a total hypocrit with his consistent omerta stance on doping, I can't help liking him as a commentator.

What he said about Froome is exactly what many of us think. A surprising style with 110-120 rpms on steep mountain grades, competitors exploding like so much popcorn, ridiculous time gaps to the other main contendors. Nothing particularily outrageous about those comments.

The thing many of the French commentators insist on is that Froome just doesn't look like a cyclist. Or that ALL the other cyclists don't look like cyclists compared to the Dawg???

Even without considering the doping issue, Froome does look like a freaking alien on the bike.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

What we have here is an omerta era doper, caught by a retrospective test, but refusing to answer any questions about his proven doping then making accusatory statements about Chris Froome. People are suggesting that he has credibility because he doped and therefore has an insight. However, he isn't coming at this from that perspective at all. He hasn't admitted what has been caught doing.

Added to which, if he has such an amazing insight, why did he then totally and shamelessly lie about what he said?

Nah. Sorry. We aren't even in the same universe as when Armstrong attacked the credibility of Landis and the other accusers. They came clean over their own deeds, and then stuck by their words. Jalabert is a lying slug trying to piggyback off the furore.

I'm much more open to the views of people like Rasmussen who haven't got so much skin in the game.

We are witnessing a perfect continuation of the Armstrong era, only under the aegis of the Union Jack and the same impact of big corp that this presupposes.

On this we agree, although I think the continuation isn't quite 'perfect'. There are differences, not least the effect that the Armstrong debacle has on the narrative.

More nonesense. Jalabert, because of his past, knows exactly when a performance is so incredible as to in fact not be credible. There isn't more to read into it than this. And that goes for the others as well. Indeed Rasmussen, the same Rasmussen that says he has no regrets about his doping? So this makes his view more credible than Jalabert's, who has refused to disclose any details because of a conflict of interests?

Actually yes. And here is why. We are all assessing the credibility of opinions proferred, but there is a degree of confirmation bias going on here. Why give credibility to Jalabert's comments, on the basis that he is a doper and therefore knows, but discount the views of other dopers who aren't condemning, or are dismissing the accusations?

Which is why I'm not interested in Jalabert. It isn't even that he isn't prepared to back up what he said, it is that he is outright lying about what he said. It isn't comparative to Landis, and Armstrong's attack on his credibility because landis's accusation came after he had told the truth about his own cheating. Jalabert is no better than Miller, possibly worse because he's milking the furore then pussying out when asked about it by a foreign journalist in a foreign country. jalabert is on home soil at his home race.

Rasmussen's expressions of suspicion of Team Sky are much more interesting, and his lack of regret over his own doping is evidence of sincerity not evidence of a lack of it.

I don't see how Jalabert saying what others have been saying, should be taken any less into consideration, simply because he refuses to come clear about his own past. Now I agree with you that this is "pussying out," however, it makes no sense on that account to dismiss what he says as "outright lying."

Why? His lying about himself in reality has no bearing on the veracity or lack there of regarding another. It's hypocritical sure, but so is Sky talking about taking all the necessary measures to "ensure" their rider is clean, but not knowing his weight! to be able to refute a very problematical issue over how Froome went so fast on that climb.

You have misread what I said. I didn't say that what he said about Sky is 'outright lying' (and I agree that what he said may be true), I said that what he said about what he said is outright lying, and that is indisputable. Sorry if that is a bit convoluted!

I notice that you haven't addressed my point about accepting the views of ex-dopers who accuse or insinuate against Froome whilst dismissing the views of ex-dopers who support Froome. You yourself have said that Jalabert should be listened to because he is an ex-doper and therefore knows, so if being an ex-doper is the criteria for believing then why cherry pick??? It is called confirmation bias.

As it happens, I have expressed my views about Froome too, and my view is that on the balance of probabilities I think he and his team are cheating, but just because Jalabert is saying the same, doesn't mean I respect what he has to say and why he is saying it. After all, this is the guy who had his lawyer say that Jalabert "regrets that through the excesses of a past period, the image of contemporary cycling and that of the Tour de France have again been besmirched when he has always worked to promote them.”

So he promoted the image of cycling and the TdF by cheating. Hmmm.

To the bolded, not at all. Now I see your point, because frankly I was ignorant about his back peddling about what he said he didn't say about what he said!

In any case this only goes to show what a world of hypocrisy there is in this sport. And the doping is perhaps the least significant matter. What I can't put down, however, is when a certain hypocrisy tries to take us all for fools; as in we don't know Froome's weight, when uberfastidious Brailsford had journalists at the Giro gel wash their hands before interviewing him. What a world.

 

[blackcat]

if we know he is lying, is he really lying to us?