Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[S2Sturges]

Re: Re:

You started off by saying you are a massive cynic and then produced a party political broadcast on behalf of sky. Dear god, there is so much gullibility in the above post I wouldn't know where to begin.

Well I don't like Sky the company. I think one thing I hate about them is that they have effectively 'money doped' and blown the rest away. I don't like seeing it in other sports either, but as much as I dislike them as a team and how they have made cycling a bit of a chore to watch, I find the 'they must be doing SOMETHING' brigade equally a boring.

It's really simple - nobody seems to have any evidence. There are no whistleblowers (and they've seen people vindicated now...) and no accusations from well-placed riders or from embittered former employees... the physiological data doesn't prove he's doping, there's no evidence of a motor and yet we have people in here talking about a 'new type of motor' it's INSANE.


That's a reasonable point... In a recent interview with Tinkoff he also mentioned the budget of Sky, he reckoned over 35 million euros, he and other top teams spend around 25 million... That extra dosh goes a long way in poaching he best riders from other teams, best of everything else, how ever you want to read into that... plus buys silence, collusion and privilege...
I seriously don't know why there isn't a team budget cap on expenses and salaries applied equally to help level the playing field somewhat, look at this season, besides Tinkoff, two other teams are folding their tents, not seeing the return on their investment when virtually one team scoffs the majority of the press on the high profile races. Sky is a media organisation, and it has the power to control all other media sources simply by having one man on the top step of the world's most viewed (for now) cycle race... Maybe Murdoch is a megalomaniac, who knows, but I'd like to know Sky's end game, there has to be one..

 

[The Hitch]

Extra budget, would not explain why Froome and Thomas, both of whom signed for peanuts, suddenly became able to climb faster than Lance at Sky.

Try again

 

[MartinGT]

They have the money to keep people quiet. This is a company that thought phone hacking was ok. They are ruthless.

The Dawg was about to lose his contract because he was just below standard for being a dom for Brailsfords vision of world Domination.

I mean come on. Yes to win a GT you need a little luck on your side (Look at Bertie last two seasons) but like someone said earlier, he could have easily had 5 Tour wins to his name. 5, yes FIVE. From pack fodder to 3 Tour wins. F@CK RIGHT OFF. He showed nothing of promise at a young age!

How many multiple Tour winners have done it clean? THis is what the Fanbots are just dismissing. If he had 5 they would be worshipping like he was some sort of Messiah, hell they do now! Totally blocking out Lance who took 7 doped to the gills.

He was smashing it in the Dauphine with Roulers and now he's smashing it with Sagan and leaving Spartacus in his wake. What next, a full on Sky sprint train with Kittel and Co?

The kid knows zero about sportsmanship. He is ruthless, he is Lance Mk2.0. Sagan wanted to give that win to Bodnar and the Dawg could easily have let them. Gained some friends in the peloton, instead his greed took over and he wanted to push. He would have probably got 5 seconds instead of the 6 and dont start with the BS of winning the Tour by a second. Yes Sagan only had to open his sprint a little more, he wasnt full bore, but the Dawg smelt blood.

There was NOTHING enjoyable about that break for me yesterday, the mutant and the sh!ts at Sky have ruined watching it for me, I am finished with this game.

 

[hrotha]

Sky having a mountain train is not suspicious in itself: it's true that they threw a lot of money at the likes of König, Nieve or Poels. Landa would qualify too if he hadn't been so over the top last year.

But that's not the core of their team. The core was always riders who never climbed at that level before: Wiggins, Froome, Porte, then Thomas. Rogers may qualify, since he hadn't climbed at that level in a long while.

You'll note that all their leaders come from the second category. Without them, and with the same amount of money, Sky wouldn't be more than a 2011-2012 Movistar: lots of mid-to-high level guys being up there but not quite.

 

[kwikki]

@MartinGT

Your main point is that previous multiple tour winners were all doped, and therefore any future multiple winner must dope. I think you are probably correct.

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

It's not an easy job to compare climbing speeds between racers who were riding the same climbs, but on a different parcours, against different opposition, with different priorities and necessities than those riding in different years... because the dynamics of the races will be different. Racing is not about going flat out all the time. Were there identical Mountain ITTs then things would be a little easier.

Does what I have seen in recent years look vastly different to anything we've ever seen? Well, not really. Perhaps (barring the miraculous Ventoux 2013 incident) we aren't seeing the extreme things we saw 1993-2010, extreme in that you had completely random people performing feats of ultra athletiscism. But at the very least, cycling now doesn't look any tamer than it did in the 80's, which as we now know was a decade of cortisone inspired wins.

So no. Toned down a tiny bit? Maybe. Clean? No way.

 

[MartinGT]

Re:

The Dawg was about to lose his contract because he was just below standard for being a dom for Brailsfords vision of world Domination.

He was smashing it in the Dauphine with Roulers and now he's smashing it with Sagan and leaving Spartacus in his wake. What next, a full on Sky sprint train with Kittel and Co?

The kid knows zero about sportsmanship. He is ruthless,

There was NOTHING enjoyable about that break for me yesterday, the mutant and the **** at Sky have ruined watching it for me, I am finished with this game.

da dawg was offered contract...holding out for more $

sprtacus?.....useless without the moto bike

sportsmanship? ffs its the TDF.......

did not enjoy.....i wonder how much you would enjoy another rider dishing

it to da dawg?

Mark L

If this had been Yates or Quintana I would have said the same and there would have been even more outrage in the clinic had it been. It's now becoming the norm to see stunts like this from the Dawg.

Yes it is the Tour, but to let Bodnar win wouldnt have cost him time instead it would have gained him respect.

 

[hrotha]

Of course letting Bodnar win would have cost him time. You're getting carried away by your own personal dislike.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.

So basically doped to the gills.

Though to be fair, the chart is average speed, which is a very flawed way of measuring doping.

That's the difference between the skeptics (or many of us anyway) and the fraudsters and their fans.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof, we admit it and point out the holes in it. Sky and their defenders meanwhile will cling to anything, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the logic, to advance the idea that there could be some non doping explanation for what we are seeing.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Comparing average speeds on their own is meaningless. Different amounts of climbing, different terrain, different race dynamics, different breakaways...

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.

So basically doped to the gills.

Though to be fair, the chart is average speed, which is a very flawed way of measuring doping.

That's the difference between the skeptics (or many of us anyway) and the fraudsters and their fans.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof, we admit it and point out the holes in it. Sky and their defenders meanwhile will cling to anything, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the logic, to advance the idea that there could be some non doping explanation for what we are seeing.

But your argument applies to everybody. Not just Sky.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.

So basically doped to the gills.

Though to be fair, the chart is average speed, which is a very flawed way of measuring doping.

That's the difference between the skeptics (or many of us anyway) and the fraudsters and their fans.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof, we admit it and point out the holes in it. Sky and their defenders meanwhile will cling to anything, no matter how ridiculous or flawed the logic, to advance the idea that there could be some non doping explanation for what we are seeing.

But your argument applies to everybody. Not just Sky.

Of course. The main split is between people who believe cycling is still heavily doped and those who believe in a "new era". It goes beyond just Sky, includes that megafraud JV, includes to some extent Nibali and some of the other "young" emerging riders who can claim to be untainted by the past.

But Sky clean vs Sky doped is a big part of that.

Seeing as how Froome and wiggins have both claimed that they wouldn't have been able to win in the "doped era", they claim "training" has replaced doping and Brailsford wants credit for cleaning up cycling, Sky fall almost exclusively into the - cycling is now clean category.

It is virtually impossible for someone to argue -in that environment, that everyone is still doping but Sky alone are clean.

 

[pastronef]

They have the money to keep people quiet. This is a company that thought phone hacking was ok. They are ruthless.

The Dawg was about to lose his contract because he was just below standard for being a dom for Brailsfords vision of world Domination.

I mean come on. Yes to win a GT you need a little luck on your side (Look at Bertie last two seasons) but like someone said earlier, he could have easily had 5 Tour wins to his name. 5, yes FIVE. From pack fodder to 3 Tour wins. F@CK RIGHT OFF. He showed nothing of promise at a young age!

How many multiple Tour winners have done it clean? THis is what the Fanbots are just dismissing. If he had 5 they would be worshipping like he was some sort of Messiah, hell they do now! Totally blocking out Lance who took 7 doped to the gills.

He was smashing it in the Dauphine with Roulers and now he's smashing it with Sagan and leaving Spartacus in his wake. What next, a full on Sky sprint train with Kittel and Co?

The kid knows zero about sportsmanship. He is ruthless, he is Lance Mk2.0. Sagan wanted to give that win to Bodnar and the Dawg could easily have let them. Gained some friends in the peloton, instead his greed took over and he wanted to push. He would have probably got 5 seconds instead of the 6 and dont start with the BS of winning the Tour by a second. Yes Sagan only had to open his sprint a little more, he wasnt full bore, but the Dawg smelt blood.

There was NOTHING enjoyable about that break for me yesterday, the mutant and the **** at Sky have ruined watching it for me, I am finished with this game.

so while riding at 50 kmh with the group at 6-7 seconds from them, they talk and Sagan explains Bodnar wants to win etc etc?
wtf, when you race you race, they didnt have a minute. Sagan won and it was fine.
Froome went on the attack and yes, he didnt want to lose ANY seconds after the effort he put.

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you...

 

[sniper]

...
so while riding at 50 kmh with the group at 6-7 seconds from them, they talk and Sagan explains Bodnar wants to win etc etc?
wtf, when you race you race, they didnt have a minute. Sagan won and it was fine.
Froome went on the attack and yes, he didnt want to lose ANY seconds after the effort he put.

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you...

You have to understand that for some cycling fans there's a limit to the amount of *** they are willing to swallow. That doesn't mean they're less of a cycling fan than you are (or others who seem to be ok with the whole circus and Froome's ongoing clowns act).

 

[kwikki]

Is anybody really asking the other teams any difficult questions? Genuine question. I am multilingual, but I don't follow foreign cycling press.

Part of the issue is that everything really focuses on the Tour. Outside of the Tour there is very little widespread reporting on cycling in the UK. Of course, it is true to say that Sky have dominated the top of the podium in the Tour for 4 years, but they haven't dominated GT cycling as a whole. Is anybody really asking questions of other teams? I used to think that maybe other cycling nationalities understood, knew about, and just accepted that doping was integral to cycling. That (like me, I suppose) they were cynical but just enjoyed the sport.

But then I saw the Pantani documentary where he described being vilified by Italian fans after his doping positive, and now I'm not so sure that there is a particular naivety to British fans.

I think if you ask the direct questions that are being asked of Sky to other successful teams you will probably get back the same sort of bullsh*t. Contador's steak, for example, backed up by his national cycling body, his President, and doubtless his fans.

 

[King Of Molehill]

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you.

Thibaut Pinot and Adam Yates let their respective jerseys down by not bridging up yesterday. That would have made it a great stage.

 

[Lyon]

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you...

I can understand it, after all it was the two most fully *** riders in the peloton going away, again. A little bit of change now and then wouldn't hurt.

I don't think Froome is as ruthless as some make him out to be. At least no more than the average cyclist. He is rather like a naive and inexperienced rider that suddenly found himself with a lot of power he didn't know how to handle. It is like he was given something rather than that he took it himself. Last year and this he has shown he is catching up. He is no natural patron of the peloton, though. Far from it.

 

[Saint Unix]

I don't think Froome is as ruthless as some make him out to be. At least no more than the average cyclist. He is rather like a naive and inexperienced rider that suddenly found himself with a lot of power he didn't know how to handle. It is like he was given something rather than that he took it himself. Last year and this he has shown he is catching up. He is no natural patron of the peloton, though. Far from it.

It's because he used to suck, despite claims of the opposite from the likes of Walsh, Swart and Brailsfraud. If you've always been a level above your peers it's easier to develop that friendly and giving leader of the peloton role. At least the previous multiple winners like Armstrong, Hinault, Merckx and the likes had that aura about them that told you they were the leader of the pack. Sky haven't got that, so they control the peloton with their SS-style goon squad setting an inhuman pace up and down the mountains to prevent any funny business from the others.

 

[Poursuivant]

They have the money to keep people quiet. This is a company that thought phone hacking was ok. They are ruthless.

The Dawg was about to lose his contract because he was just below standard for being a dom for Brailsfords vision of world Domination.

I mean come on. Yes to win a GT you need a little luck on your side (Look at Bertie last two seasons) but like someone said earlier, he could have easily had 5 Tour wins to his name. 5, yes FIVE. From pack fodder to 3 Tour wins. F@CK RIGHT OFF. He showed nothing of promise at a young age!

How many multiple Tour winners have done it clean? THis is what the Fanbots are just dismissing. If he had 5 they would be worshipping like he was some sort of Messiah, hell they do now! Totally blocking out Lance who took 7 doped to the gills.

He was smashing it in the Dauphine with Roulers and now he's smashing it with Sagan and leaving Spartacus in his wake. What next, a full on Sky sprint train with Kittel and Co?

The kid knows zero about sportsmanship. He is ruthless, he is Lance Mk2.0. Sagan wanted to give that win to Bodnar and the Dawg could easily have let them. Gained some friends in the peloton, instead his greed took over and he wanted to push. He would have probably got 5 seconds instead of the 6 and dont start with the BS of winning the Tour by a second. Yes Sagan only had to open his sprint a little more, he wasnt full bore, but the Dawg smelt blood.

There was NOTHING enjoyable about that break for me yesterday, the mutant and the **** at Sky have ruined watching it for me, I am finished with this game.

so while riding at 50 kmh with the group at 6-7 seconds from them, they talk and Sagan explains Bodnar wants to win etc etc?
wtf, when you race you race, they didnt have a minute. Sagan won and it was fine.
Froome went on the attack and yes, he didnt want to lose ANY seconds after the effort he put.

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you...

Agreed, the hate is sad.

 

[thehog]

...
so while riding at 50 kmh with the group at 6-7 seconds from them, they talk and Sagan explains Bodnar wants to win etc etc?
wtf, when you race you race, they didnt have a minute. Sagan won and it was fine.
Froome went on the attack and yes, he didnt want to lose ANY seconds after the effort he put.

when not even a super attack by Sagan and his stage win can make people admit it was a great stage, I can´t help you...

You have to understand that for some cycling fans there's a limit to the amount of ****** they are willing to swallow. That doesn't mean they're less of a cycling fan than you are (or others who seem to be ok with the whole circus and Froome's ongoing clowns act).

And the clown act has really yet to begin! There's still half a Tour left! :lol:

 

[MartinGT]

I tell you why I am broke.

I am sick of the totally hypocrisy thats surrounds cycling. I have watched pro cycling since it started on the Channel 4 in the early 80s when I was a bairn. I was naive, loved it, used to go out an emulate the riders, it was ace. Then of course you grown up etc.

I still love my cycling, I visit the races and its amazing Yorkshire have the TDY, I havent missed a stage live yet. I still get that buzz when the peloton passes you and you get the breeze of the wind as they pass and smell of the liniment.

Whilst watching this years Giro on FB I am (was) a member of a group of my local club where we discuss the pro races. The slagging off that Nibali was getting by some people was laughable. He isnt allowed to be super human, yet the Dawg could ride up Ventoux this afternoon and overtake Moto's on his way and he would be god like.

Astana are dodgy as f@ck with Vino, but when has Nibali tested positive? When I asked them for evidence, all they said was 'It's Astana' that's fair do's in my eyes, but when I point out Leiners and Yates et al, I get lambasted and told 'thats not evidence' well its as good as yours!

Then this week I am broken with the BULLSH!T 'doing a Froomey' for riding on his top tube as if it's a f@cking new thing. What next? Sky invented the f@cking bicycle? They said they have been learning on how to catch teams out etc. Brailsford is a politician speaking fraud, trying anyway to pull the wool over any layman's eyes. Yet the media companies totally lap it up and jizz one out over it.

Maybe I should just come off social media, I dunno. What's it like in countries like Italy? Are they as hysterical when Nibs does something?

 

[kwikki]

Probably. Remember Spain's reaction to Contador's pozzy.

The sight of local riders on Sky kit really ticks me off. But then I sometimes wear my Cobra era Saunier Duval jersey. Ain't life mad?

 

[MartinGT]

The one thing thats good, its got people loving cycling. That can only be a good thing.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I tell you why I am broke.

I am sick of the totally hypocrisy thats surrounds cycling. I have watched pro cycling since it started on the Channel 4 in the early 80s when I was a bairn. I was naive, loved it, used to go out an emulate the riders, it was ace. Then of course you grown up etc.

I still love my cycling, I visit the races and its amazing Yorkshire have the TDY, I havent missed a stage live yet. I still get that buzz when the peloton passes you and you get the breeze of the wind as they pass and smell of the liniment.

Whilst watching this years Giro on FB I am (was) a member of a group of my local club where we discuss the pro races. The slagging off that Nibali was getting by some people was laughable. He isnt allowed to be super human, yet the Dawg could ride up Ventoux this afternoon and overtake Moto's on his way and he would be god like.

Astana are dodgy as f@ck with Vino, but when has Nibali tested positive? When I asked them for evidence, all they said was 'It's Astana' that's fair do's in my eyes, but when I point out Leiners and Yates et al, I get lambasted and told 'thats not evidence' well its as good as yours!

Then this week I am broken with the ******!T 'doing a Froomey' for riding on his top tube as if it's a f@cking new thing. What next? Sky invented the f@cking bicycle? They said they have been learning on how to catch teams out etc. Brailsford is a politician speaking fraud, trying anyway to pull the wool over any layman's eyes. Yet the media companies totally lap it up and jizz one out over it.

Maybe I should just come off social media, I dunno. What's it like in countries like Italy? Are they as hysterical when Nibs does something?

more or less, change Froome with Nibali, Astana with Sky and you get the same reactions here.
but it´s normal


Vincenzo, Fabio (Aru) and his team are the best thing happening to cycling. italian tv guy and gals gushing.
Froome and his evil team, his bad riding style etc, just take away the joy

fans, normal.

 

[thehog]

Re:

In order to believe in the possibility of Froome being clean, you'd have to believe that his competitors are also clean. You'd have to believe that cycling has really cleaned itself up in the space of about 6 years.

In which case, you'd be expecting to see a significant drop in speeds and performances. After all, doping is Performance enhancing.

yes! complicated....but interesting EPO years are not noticeably faster..recent years av

speeds have fallen a little

Mark L

Same level as mid 90's according to that chart.
So basically doped to the gills.

When an argument on our side isn't perfect or bulletproof

but speeds of mid 90's are not that much faster than earlier....meaningless but

it questions idea cyclists must be doping now as speeds are similar to earlier

how pathetic to hear you talk of sides....we're talking froome/team sky

Mark L

What speeds? The speed for an entire stage? The climbs? The entire race?

You're using this as a benchmark of 'what' exactly?

 

[kwikki]

Re:

The one thing thats good, its got people loving cycling. That can only be a good thing.

Well that is certainly true, and on reading that I'm having to remind myself of my own bias....I hate Murdoch and Sky/News International with a passion. I don't like the commoditization of cycling either. It's a beautiful sport, and I loathe seeing it reduced to seeing fat people in sky Rapha kit on overpriced Pinarellos....but then who am I to behave like I am some sort of guardian of the spirit of cycling?

Frankly, that is a question that some of the more aggressive posters on here might like to ask themselves.

Your comment reminds me that reality is far more nuanced than the simple binary propositions of good/bad that people rush to grab, because they want certainty.

It's much the same with Armstrong. For all the bad stuff he did, there are some positive consequences, not least growth of cycling in US, bringing money into the sport and taking it out of obscurity, and yes, I'll say it, he contributed to awareness of cancer. OK, some of that turned to sh*t, but some of the positives are still felt.

People and life are complicated.

P.s. totally with you on the early 80's and C4 broadcasting. It was a golden time.