Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[LaFlorecita]

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe Froome was 100% clean pre-2011. But given the extent of his transformation, it suggests that he at least wasn't on a full blood-doping program. With Contador and Valverde, who knows? Contador was working with Saiz from 16 and Valverde was with Banesto youth team as a teenager. You would hope they weren't put on a program at that age, but it's really impossible to say.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I really don't believe Froome was 100% clean before Vuelta 2011 and I also don't believe Alberto and Alejandro doped as teenagers/juniors, maybe as U23/first year pro but not that young.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe Froome was 100% clean pre-2011. But given the extent of his transformation, it suggests that he at least wasn't on a full blood-doping program. With Contador and Valverde, who knows? Contador was working with Saiz from 16 and Valverde was with Banesto youth team as a teenager. You would hope they weren't put on a program at that age, but it's really impossible to say.

I don't know about Valverde but Contador was when 18 he joined the ONCE feeder team.

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

 

[gillan1969]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It's funny how both ...

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

It's funny how people who comment on the clinic usually get it completely wrong. Their smugness only enhancing their apparent lack of reading comprehension.

No one is arguing Froome is a worse doper than riders A, B and C.

There is no worse when it comes to doping. It's like saying you are only a little bit pregnant. It's a binary. Any suggestion otherwise is delusional.

There's no obsession either. Nice attempt at shaming but yeah not the deal at all. Results and rebuttals are on tap as the arguments they debunk get raised so often it's almost reflexive to add the facts to the conversation.

Nice attempt at pretending to play both sides. I'll be sure to keep an eye on you, you sound very familiar.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

 

[gillan1969]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

yes but i mean its the obviousness of it versus somebody who has always been good...froome's performances have an added layer of ridiculousness about them......which may explain the way he is perceived...he is ridiculous...

 

[SeriousSam]

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media

Really? There don't seem to be any pre-transformation statements from Sky that indicate this. It was only after he suddenly started riding like Armstrong that they've spread the diamond in the rough but sadly held back by badzilla narrative.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

not really....they didn't 'transform' (well, apart from Wiggins)...its the transformation which is the big red flag, and the fish being slapped across your face with the slapper shouting "doper!! doper!! doper!!" loudly at you...or as Cram noted for his athletics equivalent "New-found ability in your mid-20s has the odour of North Shields fish quay on a warm day."

...that it coincided with the hiring of Lienders is, well................................

we are not discussing the RED FLAG
we know froome is doping, dont need the red flag

just seeing how some riders are seen in a positive way, while others seen in a obsessive way

yes but i mean its the obviousness of it versus somebody who has always been good...froome's performances have an added layer of ridiculousness about them......which may explain the way he is perceived...he is ridiculous...

I understand
on the other side NOT ridicolous does not mean clean

I can understand that fans and followers can accept and cheer for a more promising doper going fast from early age, than someone who is going fast the last 4 years.

but I also think fans and followers are both doing it wrong. anyone trying to tell the other how you are wrong! no, you! no, you!

 

[Savant12]

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media

Really? There don't seem to be any pre-transformation statements from Sky that indicate this. It was only after he suddenly started riding like Armstrong that they've spread the diamond in the rough but sadly held back by badzilla narrative.

The one statement that springs to mind is of Dave Brailsford saying they [him] saw something special in Froome as he rode in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. But yes, that was in the process of building up the great Froome myth as something that they molded into a champion rather than sources from 2006 stating how great he was then, which is what I wasn't really going for. Just the back statements from Sky describing how awesome they are for spotting "talent".

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both ...

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

It's funny how people who comment on the clinic usually get it completely wrong. Their smugness only enhancing their apparent lack of reading comprehension.

No one is arguing Froome is a worse doper than riders A, B and C.

There is no worse when it comes to doping. It's like saying you are only a little bit pregnant. It's a binary. Any suggestion otherwise is delusional.

There's no obsession either. Nice attempt at shaming but yeah not the deal at all. Results and rebuttals are on tap as the arguments they debunk get raised so often it's almost reflexive to add the facts to the conversation.

Nice attempt at pretending to play both sides. I'll be sure to keep an eye on you, you sound very familiar.

I'll confess right now: David Walsh ghost writes all my comments. I just ask him what I should be posting and he sends a quick message back.

Oh and the one's who are obsessed can't see how much obsessing they do. You got a mirror around?

And the one's who want to give a contrary point are attacked for their "reading comprehension" or "lack of cycling knowledge". It's like the obsessed are scared to step out from their hating omerta where they got to hate on every doping story no matter how small, deficient in details or just factually wrong. It's as if one truth will bring their whole hating-on world come crashing down.

 

[the sceptic]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

 

[pastronef]

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

oh, that´s the bottom line. and it is easy. I know taht, you know that.

but why does the clinic/twitter care so much about clueless british fans, and their home media?
it´s wasted time staring at Froome´s cheeks in Japan saying wow he´s fat!
we know it´s a lie. move on.
the % of british followers is so little in the cycling fans world
the believers who buy the books and rant about dirty astana, will never understand

and more importantly I DO NOT FEEL THE URGE to make them understand and explain them they´re wrong and I am right
and if they brake my balls with their narrative, let´em talk, ignore them.
that´s my personal point of view
maybe I care less
maybe I dont want to analyze every line on Froome´s or Thomas´ book and say they wrong they bullshite

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

 

[Campervan man]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

Personally I don't think Froome was terrible as a young pro, a 30th in a giro and 80th in his first Tour show talent. But here's the thing the turnaround from a half decent pro of talent sure to the number 1 climber by the Vuelta 2011 when never previously showing anything near that level is a shocking transformation. It's not evenly remotely believable,if slowly across 2/3 seasons they'd have brought him along through marginal gains some people may have been a lot less sceptical. But Froome went straight for the jugular, and now bemoans the vile spat at him roadside. Maybe there's a slight Lance hangover but still you get what you deserve. On a personal level I save hundreds or even thousands of pounds to attend cycling events and feel duped by any cheaters. It's a sad state cycling and Froome/Sky sit at the top, I'm obviously not immature enough to spit at riders etc, but the hate to Froome is something I've never personally seen in over 15 years of attendance. The transformation is/was absurd and the pleasure he takes from that within must feel somewhat empty. No real love from roadside fans other than a new wave of fans that will drift away as fast as he rose to prominence in Spain.

Enjoy it while you can, as it won't last long these things never do.

Working with Geert Leindeers as Gillian said is the most obvious reason for Sky's turnaround ever. It'll never be explained away as that's impossible. Geert made so many riders transform before Sky all through dope. Same set up with Sky.

 

[harryh]

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean.

Is it possible even by doping? I think he's changeling. But I love the way he races.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

but why does the clinic/twitter care so much about clueless british fans, and their home media?
it´s wasted time staring at Froome´s cheeks in Japan saying wow he´s fat!
we know it´s a lie. move on.
the % of british followers is so little in the cycling fans world
the believers who buy the books and rant about dirty astana, will never understand

and more importantly I DO NOT FEEL THE URGE to make them understand and explain them they´re wrong and I am right
and if they brake my balls with their narrative, let´em talk, ignore them.
that´s my personal point of view
maybe I care less
maybe I dont want to analyze every line on Froome´s or Thomas´ book and say they wrong they bullshite

Good question Pastro.

You could also ask yourself the question why ''all those brits'' are doing this.

Why the clueless cycling media doing it is obvious off course; dont bite the hand that feeds you.

Why are the ordinary Brits buying this stuff?

Guess they never saw the transformation of the likes of Mauro Gianetti and his likes?

 

[Savant12]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

Personally I don't think Froome was terrible as a young pro, a 30th in a giro and 80th in his first Tour show talent. But here's the thing the turnaround from a half decent pro of talent sure to the number 1 climber by the Vuelta 2011 when never previously showing anything near that level is a shocking transformation. It's not evenly remotely believable,if slowly across 2/3 seasons they'd have brought him along through marginal gains some people may have been a lot less sceptical. But Froome went straight for the jugular, and now bemoans the vile spat at him roadside. Maybe there's a slight Lance hangover but still you get what you deserve. On a personal level I save hundreds or even thousands of pounds to attend cycling events and feel duped by any cheaters. It's a sad state cycling and Froome/Sky sit at the top, I'm obviously not immature enough to spit at riders etc, but the hate to Froome is something I've never personally seen in over 15 years of attendance. The transformation is/was absurd and the pleasure he takes from that within must feel somewhat empty. No real love from roadside fans other than a new wave of fans that will drift away as fast as he rose to prominence in Spain.

Enjoy it while you can, as it won't last long these things never do.

Working with Geert Leindeers as Gillian said is the most obvious reason for Sky's turnaround ever. It'll never be explained away as that's impossible. Geert made so many riders transform before Sky all through dope. Same set up with Sky.

Yes, Leindeers raises red flags and to have hired him asks more questions of Sky, which were reported by the British media, so let's drop the whole British media are on the Team Sky bandwagon. Some are, of course, but some know that something is up with Team Sky but due to Sky's likely influence [they are a Murdoch entity, of course] are unlikely to raise a whole spectacle.
Team Sky believe too much in their own hype. They should have learned how other teams do it by keeping silent about internal doping such as Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff who have learned through the years: once a riders gets popped, then it was done by the rider not by the team. I guess someone smart over at Sky thought if we tell the world we are doing all these great and innovative things with the riders then we can distract from doping claims. The problem was that some riders "improved" too much so they need to hype up their "marginal gains" strategy.

 

[pastronef]

Yes, Leindeers raises red flags and to have hired him asks more questions of Sky, which were reported by the British media, so let's drop the whole British media are on the Team Sky bandwagon. Some are, of course, but some know that something is up with Team Sky but due to Sky's likely influence [they are a Murdoch entity, of course] are unlikely to raise a whole spectacle.
Team Sky believe too much in their own hype. They should have learned how other teams do it by keeping silent about internal doping such as Astana, Katusha, Tinkoff who have learned through the years: once a riders gets popped, then it was done by the rider not by the team. I guess someone smart over at Sky thought if we tell the world we are doing all these great and innovative things with the riders then we can distract from doping claims. The problem was that some riders "improved" too much so they need to hype up their "marginal gains" strategy.

they could not keep silent, they HAD to spread their narrative about clean cycling, ZTP, new deal team, innovation. it was essential for the british public in 2010. they started that way because there wasn't any other way to do it. the fans had to believe in them, in something more than a normal cycling team. and that is wrong, we know it
that maybe is what irks most of their detractors

here in Italy I am not very much into it, fans and journos obviously dont care about Sky, neither newspapers write about them so maybe that's why I am not so obsessed with them

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Next year WITH Chris and 5 bottles of champagne for 5K?

 

[red_flanders]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

You may be missing it, but your explanation here relies on believing several of the talking points of the Sky mythology. The guy had been racing in European development squads for years. No, it's not possible to magically go from pack fodder to world-beater clean. it's not. Yes, your "not legally proven" is exactly the same in use and in context as "never tested positive". It is all self-delusion to imagine there's any chance this was done without assistance. The "all the other dopers are just as bad" qualification betrays that you know this to be true. it's the final way out–-when it is proven legally you can tell yourself (or us, whichever seems to be motivating this) that your doper isn't any worse than the others.

 

[pastronef]

It's funny how both Team "Sky" Froome and the Anti-Froome squad use the "myth" of his transformation from that kid in the African village to Tour do France champion in different ways but with the same obsessiveness.

Team Sky overplay the "diamond in the rough" whilst discussing Froome's rise except they knew about his talent, repeated his potential talent to the media but then play naive in a "look at how great we are" because we turned him in to a world beater using "marginal gains" or aka team doping though never legally proved.

The Anti-Froome squad use the same background as a way to obsess about the doping myth of Froome as a way to make out that he is a worse doper than riders A, B and C because he came from nothing and rose to the top. A doper is a doper no matter how they doped, why they doped and when they started doping. All bad as each other.

I think you misunderstand. The transformation in itself isn't a myth. It's a well established fact that Froome went from nobody to world beater overnight. The Myth is that this can be done clean. Sky use the british media propaganda system to spread this myth to clueless fans, but everyone else knows it's a lie.

I also like that you thew in "not legally proven" in there. Never tested positive!

Perhaps, my wording does not explain my position of the "myth". My position is not so much that Froome was a nobody who turned into a "world beater" but I disagree with the notion from some here that Froome was "pathetic" on a bike based on some race results in amateur competitions or racing in Africa.

Sure, he knew how to ride a bike during his early years but at the same level of development as say someone growing up in a European youth or pro feeder team? Probably not but he was not "pathetic" rather "less developed" which isn't enough to say that he is/was/still doping because he went from a "nobody" in Africa to a word beater.

The "myth" that I allude to is Sky's position of turning Froome from a "rough diamond" to the Koh-i-Noor during 2001 based solely on their method of training/nutritional methods or "marginal gains" that they love harp on about it. Is that transformation possible with doping? Possible but based on the cycling culture it seems unlikely.

"Not legally proven". Yes, I like that line because no matter how inaccurate it is; it is so far true. Lance "not tested positive" Armstrong had many detractors claiming it was false but due to legal ramifications couldn't get enough public backing and now with the truth out we see Lance squirming around assigning blame to everyone who were around him at the time of his doping.

You may be missing it, but your explanation here relies on believing several of the talking points of the Sky mythology. The guy had been racing in European development squads for years. No, it's not possible to magically go from pack fodder to world-beater clean. it's not. Yes, your "not legally proven" is exactly the same in use and in context as "never tested positive". It is all self-delusion to imagine there's any chance this was done without assistance. The "all the other dopers are just as bad" qualification betrays that you know this to be true. it's the final way out–-when it is proven legally you can tell yourself (or us, whichever seems to be motivating this) that your doper isn't any worse than the others.

yes, we know it, he knows, you know.
I think we all know that here in the clinic.

and you are also right, one doper is not worse than the others.
you can do 1 blood bag because you are a great rider when clean, and race against a slow rider who does 2 blood bags to go that fast
both of the riders dope.
and to the bots who believe Froome/Sky do it clean (or want to believe) : let'em believe. cheer for your fav doper against froome/sky and chill.

 

[pastronef]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-refused-to-apply-for-tue-at-tour-de-france-despite-illness/

tue-froome-tour

all right guys unleash your dawgs

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/froome-refused-to-apply-for-tue-at-tour-de-france-despite-illness/

tue-froome-tour

all right guys unleash your dawgs

Couldnt care less, just this: when you are as sick as he claimes he was I find it incredible he climbs better/faster in w/k than former real champions like Hinault/Fignon/LeMond/Lucho.

Just my 4 pennies