Libertine Seguros said:
Alpe73 said:
If you have NEW ... NEW!!! evidence ... show it. If not ... cease and desist with the same old, tired, boring, putrid flotsam. Because it's from a CLINICal, anti-social source deeper than any PED use.
Ironic that you would reference the "same old tired, boring, putrid flotsam", because it's just as tiring to read the three-thousandth attempt to spin the doubt as being because of national biases, or the three-thousandth attempt to claim that his being able to climb with Denis Menchov for a couple of kilometres on Alpe d'Huez before blowing up and losing nine minutes to him was somehow a sign of the greatest talent of his generation, as it is to read the three-thousandth attempt to conflate Froome with a motor because he happened to look downward funny at one point in a race video where he can just about be picked out in the background or spin a picture of him with some ex-rider as proof he dopes because he wasn't punching them in the face at the time the camera went off. Yes, some of the accusations levelled at Froome have been fanciful theories based on some pretty thin evidence, but some of them haven't, and you shouldn't use the former to dismiss the latter out of hand. There are plenty of reasons many posters suspect Froome and plenty of justifiable reasons why he attracts more distaste than many other riders at the forefront of the péloton, and those posters sufficiently resent what they see as perfectly reasoned, considered opinions being dismissed with a patronizing implication that they are based on mindless jingoism that they feel compelled to defend their position.
I get frustrated by the wild conspiracy theories and logic jumps too, but don't pretend it's just the propagators of those in here and you're not a part of the reason the thread has spiralled to this length too.
My first post ... ever ... in this thread (so, sorry, no, I can't take credit for contributing to the mutha ---- ing spiralling of this thread to its iconic magnitude) ... was to refute JS's assertion that prior to 2011, Chris Froome was
" a nobody, with no talent and no potential." In essence, I was calling into question the 'predictive validity' (so to speak) of John's measurement of (Froome's) potential.
Now, as Brown Bobby so aptly argued ... John's assertion is total rubbish, fabulously wrong ... in that Froome accomplished exactly, numerous times over, indeed, what John claimed (retroactively) Froome was incapable of achieving. Let's leave that one for dead.
The rest of you, who concur with John are also on the hook for this miserable fail. On the other hand, you tea leaf-reading, lucky stick throwing, penny-rubbing, race program marking clairvoyants who bet on Dawg back in early 2011 ... got a mutha ----in big pay day coming. Sweet.
Now, I know what John probably means, as does BB and host of others ... was
what he meant to say was that prior to 2011, Chris Froome "was a nobody, had no talent and certainly did not have the potential to win a GT,
clean. Now, I can see myself warming up to that somewhat. I agree with John and many posters here that Froome's past performances are "indicators" (in real time) that he may not (have had) what it takes. Could I have been wrong?
Bango ... again. Miserable fail. He's done it ... 4Ts and a V. To anyone that matters ... that is ... anyone that can affect his results, his contract, his endorsements, his fan base ... he is, as we speak, for all intents and purposes, clean. If not ... prove it. That's where the needle's stuck, mate.
Probability. Ah, there's the rub.