Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[brownbobby]

Re:

Funny thing is that whenever I heard the term 'witch hunt' used in relation to an individual or group targeted by an investigation, allegations or the similar, my immediate reaction is that the person using the term 'witch hunt' is trying to shut down conversation as part of a PR strategy. not saying that people are doing that for that purpose here, but after Lance and Trump and others using the term, it is clear that it originates from the lawyers and PR consultants and others repeating it is part of the strategy.

For me, it simply leads to increased suspicion about their clients, not less.

I'm struggling to determine from your post which side of the debate you are trying to carry here, but it doesn't really matter. The term 'witch hunt' was used by the OP, not me.

I'm not sure if he was applying it to the pursuit of Froome, in which case it was quite a statement to admit that this is what it is. I took it as a statement of intent to continue the hunt for and exposure of Sky fans. I agreed it was very apt. There are many definitions of a witch hunt; here is just one:

witch hunt. The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority. [/i]

So, when applied to the patrolling of certain posters on here, searching out any Sky/Froome supporters (actual or perceived) and attempting to shut down any debate, discredit any opinions they may have, purely because they have an opinion different to their own, then this indeed looks to fit the definition of a witch hunt to me.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

 

[Random Direction]

Re: Re:

Funny thing is that whenever I heard the term 'witch hunt' used in relation to an individual or group targeted by an investigation, allegations or the similar, my immediate reaction is that the person using the term 'witch hunt' is trying to shut down conversation as part of a PR strategy. not saying that people are doing that for that purpose here, but after Lance and Trump and others using the term, it is clear that it originates from the lawyers and PR consultants and others repeating it is part of the strategy.

For me, it simply leads to increased suspicion about their clients, not less.

I'm struggling to determine from your post which side of the debate you are trying to carry here, but it doesn't really matter. The term 'witch hunt' was used by the OP, not me.

I'm not sure if he was applying it to the pursuit of Froome, in which case it was quite a statement to admit that this is what it is. I took it as a statement of intent to continue the hunt for and exposure of Sky fans. I agreed it was very apt. There are many definitions of a witch hunt; here is just one:

witch hunt. The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority. [/i]

So, when applied to the patrolling of certain posters on here, searching out any Sky/Froome supporters (actual or perceived) and attempting to shut down any debate, discredit any opinions they may have, purely because they have an opinion different to their own, then this indeed looks to fit the definition of a witch hunt to me.

In general I try to find an evidence base behind statements, allegations, etc. To me this evidence includes that when there is smoke, there is usually some sort of fire behind the scenes - and therefore my opinion is that with Froome/Sky/wiggins, there is more than ample evidence that something is smelly behind the scenes.

In the above, I took witch hunt to apply to the pursuit of Froome. As for posters, a number of us have seen the same approaches / arguments used by people saying that there is no issue with Froome with those who were adamant Lance was clean, even down to posters pre-emptively changing argument lines to conveniently match those brought out in more public spheres in the day or two afterwards. The only thing missing is WonderLance.

Cycling is enough of a cesspool and has a long enough history of doping that if all of a sudden a new clean champion comes along and wins four tours in a row while not exactly having the most stellar development that questions, and strong questions, should be raised.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Funny thing is that whenever I heard the term 'witch hunt' used in relation to an individual or group targeted by an investigation, allegations or the similar, my immediate reaction is that the person using the term 'witch hunt' is trying to shut down conversation as part of a PR strategy. not saying that people are doing that for that purpose here, but after Lance and Trump and others using the term, it is clear that it originates from the lawyers and PR consultants and others repeating it is part of the strategy.

For me, it simply leads to increased suspicion about their clients, not less.

I'm struggling to determine from your post which side of the debate you are trying to carry here, but it doesn't really matter. The term 'witch hunt' was used by the OP, not me.

I'm not sure if he was applying it to the pursuit of Froome, in which case it was quite a statement to admit that this is what it is. I took it as a statement of intent to continue the hunt for and exposure of Sky fans. I agreed it was very apt. There are many definitions of a witch hunt; here is just one:

witch hunt. The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority. [/i]

So, when applied to the patrolling of certain posters on here, searching out any Sky/Froome supporters (actual or perceived) and attempting to shut down any debate, discredit any opinions they may have, purely because they have an opinion different to their own, then this indeed looks to fit the definition of a witch hunt to me.

In general I try to find an evidence base behind statements, allegations, etc. To me this evidence includes that when there is smoke, there is usually some sort of fire behind the scenes - and therefore my opinion is that with Froome/Sky/wiggins, there is more than ample evidence that something is smelly behind the scenes.

In the above, I took witch hunt to apply to the pursuit of Froome. As for posters, a number of us have seen the same approaches / arguments used by people saying that there is no issue with Froome with those who were adamant Lance was clean, even down to posters pre-emptively changing argument lines to conveniently match those brought out in more public spheres in the day or two afterwards. The only thing missing is WonderLance.

Cycling is enough of a cesspool and has a long enough history of doping that if all of a sudden a new clean champion comes along and wins four tours in a row while not exactly having the most stellar development that questions, and strong questions, should be raised.

Thanks for clarifying, just to remind you again, use of the term witch hunt was by the OP, not me. It appears that the OP shares your overall view on the doping debate so it is perhaps with him that you should be taking exception with regards to use of the term.

As for the rest of your points, I agree loosely with you so no need for any more debate between us on that, I just take exception to people automatically closing down and discrediting comments purely because they have unjustified prejudiced opinions on the posters, based on the historical posts of others.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

"VeloNews reached out to Dr. John Dickinson, a leading expert on asthma in sport and head of the respiratory clinic at the University of Kent’s School of Sport and Exercise Science for help in understanding the science of exercise-induced asthma (EIA). In 2014, Dickinson led a study that revealed more than 70 percent of Britain’s top swimmers and nearly one-third of Team Sky riders were afflicted by EIA. Furthermore, the British physician has objectively tested Froome and confirms the four-time Tour de France champion has asthma. Due to doctor/patient confidentiality, he is not able to divulge how severe Froome’s asthma is."

http://www.velonews.com/2017/12/new...-asthma-and-what-comes-next-for-froome_453676

Don't know about earlier than that but presumably he had before too.

That certainly was one objective testing! :lol:

I don't believe a word to Sky doctors anymore (or their associates). And I would love to see as one poster stated medical record of Froome TUE's for asthma from day one of his professional career (I bet there was none pre-2010, when salbutamol was banned), and if possible his childhood medical record for asthma.[/quote]

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?[/quote]

Of course he is/would. There are only two scenarios in this whole debate. You either confirm the fact that Sky and Froome are lieing. Or you yourself are lying. There is no other truth.

Come on man. I've only been here a couple of months and I've got that straight already. Keep up :lol:[/quote]

Lol, I've read some gibberish on here in the past but this takes the biscuit. Well done, have a cookie.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Lol, I've read some gibberish on here in the past but this takes the biscuit. Well done, have a cookie.[/quote]

Thanks, but I'll pass on the cookie. I'm watching my weight

But ok, I retract. Should have clarified for some, not all. I'm guilty of the stereotyping which I detest so much. My bad...

 

[Random Direction]

Re: Re:

Funny thing is that whenever I heard the term 'witch hunt' used in relation to an individual or group targeted by an investigation, allegations or the similar, my immediate reaction is that the person using the term 'witch hunt' is trying to shut down conversation as part of a PR strategy. not saying that people are doing that for that purpose here, but after Lance and Trump and others using the term, it is clear that it originates from the lawyers and PR consultants and others repeating it is part of the strategy.

For me, it simply leads to increased suspicion about their clients, not less.

I'm struggling to determine from your post which side of the debate you are trying to carry here, but it doesn't really matter. The term 'witch hunt' was used by the OP, not me.

I'm not sure if he was applying it to the pursuit of Froome, in which case it was quite a statement to admit that this is what it is. I took it as a statement of intent to continue the hunt for and exposure of Sky fans. I agreed it was very apt. There are many definitions of a witch hunt; here is just one:

witch hunt. The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority. [/i]

So, when applied to the patrolling of certain posters on here, searching out any Sky/Froome supporters (actual or perceived) and attempting to shut down any debate, discredit any opinions they may have, purely because they have an opinion different to their own, then this indeed looks to fit the definition of a witch hunt to me.

In general I try to find an evidence base behind statements, allegations, etc. To me this evidence includes that when there is smoke, there is usually some sort of fire behind the scenes - and therefore my opinion is that with Froome/Sky/wiggins, there is more than ample evidence that something is smelly behind the scenes.

In the above, I took witch hunt to apply to the pursuit of Froome. As for posters, a number of us have seen the same approaches / arguments used by people saying that there is no issue with Froome with those who were adamant Lance was clean, even down to posters pre-emptively changing argument lines to conveniently match those brought out in more public spheres in the day or two afterwards. The only thing missing is WonderLance.

Cycling is enough of a cesspool and has a long enough history of doping that if all of a sudden a new clean champion comes along and wins four tours in a row while not exactly having the most stellar development that questions, and strong questions, should be raised.

Thanks for clarifying, just to remind you again, use of the term witch hunt was by the OP, not me. It appears that the OP shares your overall view on the doping debate so it is perhaps with him that you should be taking exception with regards to use of the term.

As for the rest of your points, I agree loosely with you so no need for any more debate between us on that, I just take exception to people automatically closing down and discrediting comments purely because they have unjustified prejudiced opinions on the posters, based on the historical posts of others.

Nope, not taking the bait. I was addressing your comment, not that of the OP.

To be honest, I generally ignore your posts as they often seem designed to start an argument. I'm not here to argue, instead I'd rather discuss fact and possibility.

 

[poupou]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

You are missing the point : the doctor can lie too as it was the case in HWMNBN's case

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

Q: What was Lance doing? A: Passing doping controls.

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

Q: What was Lance doing? A: Passing doping controls.

Again thats for the Lance threads

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

Really? Cheating is cheating, doping is doping. Once the line is crossed it doesn't matter by how much.

Froome won 5 GTs. I guess he is pretty close to Armstrong in methodology.

All the lies Sky have told probably surpass UKPostal days and then some.

Froome transformed in 2 weeks and we have no proof of how, but lots of lies that contradict reality.

 

[rick james]

its f*cking asthma treatment....not EPO....asthma treatment that transforms you in 2 weeks? sign me up, I'll have some of that

 

[rick james]

All the lies Sky have told probably surpass UKPostal days and then some.

Sure

 

[veganrob]

Re:

its f*cking asthma treatment....not EPO....asthma treatment that transforms you in 2 weeks? sign me up, I'll have some of that

Yeah, good one rick.
Maybe then you could take us all back to 2011 and tell us the story of the Imaculate Transformation of Froome

 

[Random Direction]

Re: Re:

its f*cking asthma treatment....not EPO....asthma treatment that transforms you in 2 weeks? sign me up, I'll have some of that

Yeah, good one rick.
Maybe then you could take us all back to 2011 and tell us the story of the Imaculate Transformation of Froome

Immaculate Transfusion is more likely

 

[sittingbison]

Re: Re:

its f*cking asthma treatment....not EPO....asthma treatment that transforms you in 2 weeks? sign me up, I'll have some of that

Yeah, good one rick.
Maybe then you could take us all back to 2011 and tell us the story of the Imaculate Transformation of Froome

Jeebus, for the last time!

Badzilla ate all his red blood cells, a unamed Sky doctor figured it out, and wrote on a napkin to Sir Dave that CF must be kept on a contract because he was above the bell curve. After Dawg almost won the Tour of Poland and won the prestigious Anotomic Jock Strap race, SDB decided to drop an underperforming rider for Dawg at the 2011 Veulta, where after getting his shoes on the correct feet he showed the world his true potential by not falling off his bike in the ITT and not needing a push up Angliru.... after Wiggo came down with asthma

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

Yes sir. Million miles, sir. Twice the speed limit sir. Going 60 in a 30 zone, when normal is 5 sir. Not like he's doing drugs, sir. Transparent and everything!

John Swanson

 

[Tonton]

@rick james...come on...you keep calling posts to be off-topic (it belongs to the LA thread) when it's the same thing, basically: the super team with a nobody winning multiple Tours. Blaming the skeptics, who don't dream big.

Some here argue that the masses will not completely understand, or don't care, but I garantee you that The French (oooooh they are bad, Lappartien spiked the drink, it's a conspiracy) will not put up with this. They knew. Like anybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size. The LA/USPS dish served again.

And some poor blokes like my buddy portugal11 were blaming The French for treating Froome so badly. Like Contador. Well, they smelled the rat. the same dish. The BS. We're talking about a national treasure here: Le Tour.

When I saw Froome run up the Ventoux, I cheered for him. The awkward spare bike episode was hilarious, and I caught my self cheering for him. Portal whined, results were offset. The 3K rule on a mountain stqage...

If there was any doubt about Sky doing ANYTHING to win, including swaying the judges, That was it.

Christ Froome was my pick in the doping draft, so I applause his successes . I had Valverde and Vino too. Good company.

 

[Merckx index]

Looking on the bright side of things, Michelle doesn't have to wonder what Chris wants for Christmas this year.

 

[aphronesis]

Re:

its f*cking asthma treatment....not EPO....asthma treatment that transforms you in 2 weeks? sign me up, I'll have some of that

Ah, gotcha. So you're saying that since asthma "treatment" is the only substance that got flagged, it's the only one in play?

Like people only commit the crimes they're caught at?

You do get that that's a lot of "treatment" right?

 

[Alpe73]

@rick james...come on...you keep calling posts to be off-topic (it belongs to the LA thread) when it's the same thing, basically: the super team with a nobody winning multiple Tours. Blaming the skeptics, who don't dream big.

Some here argue that the masses will not completely understand, or don't care, but I garantee you that The French (oooooh they are bad, Lappartien spiked the drink, it's a conspiracy) will not put up with this. They knew. Like anybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size. The LA/USPS dish served again.

And some poor blokes like my buddy portugal11 were blaming The French for treating Froome so badly. Like Contador. Well, they smelled the rat. the same dish. The BS. We're talking about a national treasure here: Le Tour.

When I saw Froome run up the Ventoux, I cheered for him. The awkward spare bike episode was hilarious, and I caught my self cheering for him. Portal whined, results were offset. The 3K rule on a mountain stqage...

If there was any doubt about Sky doing ANYTHING to win, including swaying the judges, That was it.

Christ Froome was my pick in the doping draft, so I applause his successes . I had Valverde and Vino too. Good company.

Was up the Geant de Provence late summer this year. Magnifique! Certainly, Ventoux is appropriately named.
After Ventoux is ticked off the list, there are so many other GREAT places to ride in the area ... and I did.
Of course, the scenery, the food and especially, the hospitality, was outstanding!

When you say, “The French will not put up with this”, what do you mean? I’m CERTAIN that you would not want your comments to be misconstrued by some nut job who chanced to read them.

Again, I am CERTAIN that the French fans will let the proper governing bodies ajudicate this matter and behave in a civil manner ... as should any spectator at a sporting event.

Chris Froome deserves due process ... and if it is found that he has clearly broken a rule that governs his participation ... then he deserves an appropriate sanction ... including the consideration of aggravating or mitigating factors.

If he does start the Tour ... and is assaulted in any manner by a fan, I’m certain that fan’s actions will be met with the full force and measure of French law ... as would be a soccer hooligan, etc.

Notwithstanding ASO, France’s citizens and cycling fans can claim a nostalgic, sentimental association with an epic Sporting event such as Le Tour. ALL of us truly cherish that. BUT ... their jurisdictional power ends there.

Life is too short, mon ami. Keep it real. Don’t take these sports so seriously. A century from now, there’ll be no Tour, no Champion’s League, no Super Bowl. Yes, let’s deal with the cheats, but let’s not engage in the JdA treatment. Keep it real, bro.

 

[Merckx index]

There has been some discussion about the parallels with the Contador case. There are some similarities, and there are also a lot of key differences. But here's a similarity that no one I'm aware of has mentioned, and which could be critical to the final judgment.

When Contador's positive was made public, he could have claimed it resulted from a contaminated supplement. As it happened, the final decision concluded it was. But Contador not only did not take that approach, he specifically denied that he had consumed any supplements at that time. He didn't say this because it was the truth--a rider in that position will say most anything that helps his case--but because he knew he would still likely receive a suspension if it was a contaminated supplement. By taking this off the table, he was gambling that he could get off completely, and he lost this gamble. While the final decision was indeed that it was a contaminated supplement, the CAS panel wasn't particularly confident of this, and since Contador hadn't given them any help in this sense, they gave him two years. Had he seized on the supplement explanation from the outset, admitting he had made a mistake, he might very well have gotten just one year. In that case, he still would have forfeited the 2010 Tour, and probably the 2011 Giro, but he could at least have raced the 2012 Tour, and would have been much better prepared for it than he was the the Vuelta that he ended up racing.

Froome I think has made a similar mistake with his "I've broken no rules" statement. He's committed to the position that he didn't accidentally inhale more than the allowed dose, much as Contador committed to the position that he had done nothing wrong, not even accidentally. Whether he realizes that or not at this point, it's a gamble, just as Contador's position was. If this goes to CAS, as I think is likely, this could come back to haunt him. The panel will almost certainly conclude from the science that he must have taken more than the allowable dose. Froome then will be revealed as, at best, forgetful, and thus not a very credible witness of his own behavior, or at worst, a liar. Or if he changes his tune, a self-serving hypocrite. Petacchi, it's true, basically got away with this, still got a decision based on an accident, but he still got 15+ months (10 back-dated, added to 5+ when he was suspended), and I wouldn't count on the panel this time being so forgiving. Froome is basically begging any panel to decide between a freakishly uncommon result or intentional doping, and this is a choice he almost certainly can't win.

If you killed someone, better to plead manslaughter than gamble you can beat a murder rap.

 

[movingtarget]

Looking on the bright side of things, Michelle doesn't have to wonder what Chris wants for Christmas this year.

A time machine or a sympathetic judge ?

 

[movingtarget]

@rick james...come on...you keep calling posts to be off-topic (it belongs to the LA thread) when it's the same thing, basically: the super team with a nobody winning multiple Tours. Blaming the skeptics, who don't dream big.

Some here argue that the masses will not completely understand, or don't care, but I garantee you that The French (oooooh they are bad, Lappartien spiked the drink, it's a conspiracy) will not put up with this. They knew. Like anybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size. The LA/USPS dish served again.

And some poor blokes like my buddy portugal11 were blaming The French for treating Froome so badly. Like Contador. Well, they smelled the rat. the same dish. The BS. We're talking about a national treasure here: Le Tour.

When I saw Froome run up the Ventoux, I cheered for him. The awkward spare bike episode was hilarious, and I caught my self cheering for him. Portal whined, results were offset. The 3K rule on a mountain stqage...

If there was any doubt about Sky doing ANYTHING to win, including swaying the judges, That was it.

Christ Froome was my pick in the doping draft, so I applause his successes . I had Valverde and Vino too. Good company.

I wonder if the spare bike had a puffer taped to the frame ? Maybe the moto rider was taking his Ventolin when Richie ran into the back of him ?

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

As far as can see the dr is an independent academic working at a well known uk university, so I doubt he is the back pocket of Sky unless you think he'd risk his reputation and potentially career for Froome/Sky ?

Lance had never told to his doctors and surgeons that he used drugs, have we been told by them. Do you believe them too?

Try keep the lance talk for the lance threads, Froome has had an abnormal reading for asthma treatment, a million miles away from what lance was doing

Q: What was Lance doing? A: Passing doping controls.

Again thats for the Lance threads

From what I can see your argument goes something like this:
You -Froome is clean because he passes doping tests
Others- but people have past doping tests in the past when they were doping
You - but they were not called Chris Froome. Therefore it is irrelevant

Errm