Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Valverde won in style beating a super peloton after his July injury and after 5 days of racing.
Lulu Sanchez, Fuglsang, Visconti, Herrada and others came to hug and congratulate him. riders from Astana, Bahrain, Movistar cheering for Alejandro´s win. I checked on here and on twitter, yes, some rare funny comments, nothing much. even from the most anti-doping (ehm.. anti-Sky)
that is the way the peloton behaves. they are ok with that it seems.

Why the deflection? It's not about anybody else, it's about the guy who's doped his way from journeyman to a load of grand tour wins and has now been caught. Everybody here knows the unwritten rules of cycling are "1. Don't get caught, and 2. Don't take the p!ss so much that you make it completely obvious" - Froome gets a lot of stick because he's been breaking the second rule for a bit over six years now, and so nobody's crying now that he's broken the first rule as well and is getting a ban.

So are we saying that Valverde's 2017 season pre-accident wasn't taking the p!ss?

Froome's been taking the piss since Vuelta 2011...it's like comparing 200 ng/ml with 2000 ng/ml

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.

I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out.

I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky.
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"

 

[macbindle]

Perhaps Froome should have doped heavily from his outset as a pro, thereby rendering himself less suspicious and garnering a profile like convicted doper such as Contador and Valverde.

Perhaps he shouldn't have joined an Anglo team that felt compelled to push the narrative of clean sport.

Perhaps then he'd be just another doping winner.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Perhaps Froome should have doped heavily from his outset as a pro, thereby rendering himself less suspicious and garnering a profile like convicted doper such as Contador and Valverde.

Perhaps he shouldn't have joined an Anglo team that felt compelled to push the narrative of clean sport.

Perhaps then he'd be just another doping winner.

bingo.
the public can be swayed so easily. just dope from the beginning, but dont dare join the club mid-way, otherwise you are the black sheep.

 

[macbindle]

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

 

[DanielSong39]

Motor definitely plays a part.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.

I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out.

I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky.
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"

Now you know the text in bold is not true don't you?

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.

I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out.

I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky.
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"

Now you know the text in bold is not true don't you?

"nothing such hard" I should have written.
the vitriol towards Sky riders is top notch. for sure some snarky comments towards other teams/riders but I´ve seen sheer hate for Sky, Rapha, Pinarello, Richie Porte (even after he left), Froome, his family and many examples. blaming him for avoiding taxes in Monaco (not a word about Quintana or Sagan living there too, nor for Alberto/NIbali/Aru in Lugano)
ok, yellow jersey winner gathers the most attention, but sometimes it was hysterical on here and twitter
I know, I´ve repeated those things already in the past on these pages.

 

[lartiste]

Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.

 

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.

in the past years yes. this year he won it by a whisker, and was below par on the climbs.
Astana killed the 2014 Tour and the Hautacam stage. boom!

ps. I missed the "unbelievable"
it´s a matter of believing or not. for sure, as said before by MacBindle, it´s easier to "believe" in convicted dopers like Valverde and Contador, who doped steadily and didnt have the transformation. that leaves us with less questions, both about the riders and about our perception of "fair" and normal and believable racing.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.

Ullrich was close one year out of five. About Quintana 2015 close. Hardly a huge rivalry.

 

[rick james]

Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here

 

[rick james]

And let me get this right, you couldn’t give two dog sh!ts if someone injects a barrel load of EPO as long as the don’t to try people that they are clean?

Amazing logic

 

[lartiste]

Re: Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.

in the past years yes. this year he won it by a whisker, and was below par on the climbs.
Astana killed the 2014 Tour and the Hautacam stage. boom!

ps. I missed the "unbelievable"
it´s a matter of believing or not. for sure, as said before by MacBindle, it´s easier to "believe" in convicted dopers like Valverde and Contador, who doped steadily and didnt have the transformation. that leaves us with less questions, both about the riders and about our perception of "fair" and normal and believable racing.

you can replace unbelievable unreal ....

but good try, the others are even more bad (suspicious) :lol:

 

[lartiste]

Re: Re:

We are angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged our pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as we dislike bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw us out of our fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

This is more complicated in my opinion. And it is connected with few issues:

1. In post Postal era no one believes in miracle transformation and becoming from pack fodder biggest star is unbelievable (even LA was more successful before the transformation).

2. When you compare Sky and Postal they are so similar, in the way of racing.

3. Sky is killing TdF, in past there were huge rivalries - LA/JU, IB etc., then AC/AS and now? Nothing, no one is close enough to Sky.

Ullrich was close one year out of five. About Quintana 2015 close. Hardly a huge rivalry.

LA consider JU biggest rival in those years and majority of public as well. Everyone was waiting for July what the shape of JU will be and correct with few exceptions it was not that good. Sometimes it was not his mistake, I remember, that one year he crashed into team car during the training just few days before the beginning of the Tour... .

 

[webvan]

Yeah that was 2005 and then LA passed him during the (long) prologue, one of my worst cycling memories ever ! ;-)

 

[Merckx index]

Why are they going directly to CADF? Seems to me the simplest and most likely reason is that LADS planned to give Froome a suspension, knew for certain he wouldn’t accept it, so why not just skip that step? If they have been in communication, as the Gazzetta article indicates, both sides might have wanted this. At that point, there would be nothing to lose (unless Froome wanted to go directly to CAS), and definitely something to gain—a quicker resolution to the case.

The previous report of the short suspension, followed by its quick denial, now makes a little more sense, too. The correct part of that report (assuming this latest report is correct!) is that Froome has agreed to go to the CADF. A short suspension has surely been mentioned as one possibility. Even if Froome isn’t interested in this (see below), after all these negotiations, everything would have been suggested by one side or the other.

Why wouldn't someone plead guilty, even when they know the evidence means they're almost certain to be found guilty regardless, and by not pleading guilty they are likely to increase the severity of the punishment?

Well one very obvious reason springs to mind....the notion of sticking to the truth as a matter of principle and integrity if you know with absolute conviction that you are not guilty.

Yes, that’s possible. But there’s another factor at play as well. When you go before a judge or a panel on a doping case, your explanation is weighed against the alternative possibilities. (A good example of this process is found in the Contador CAS case). Let’s say Froome’s team has come up with a physiological explanation for the positive. This theory can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt; they can’t go back to the Vuelta and make all the necessary measurements to establish this. What they can do at best as show that their scenario could have happened. E.g., if they want to argue that another drug inhibited excretion of salbutamol, they could cite studies demonstrating this other drug has this effect, and provide evidence that Froome had this other drug in his body at the time.

How likely it is that this theory will be accepted depends partly on the strength of the evidence for it, obviously, but it also depends on the strength of the evidence for alternative explanations. One alternative explanation is negligence. If Froome admits he isn’t sure if he might have made a mistake in his doses, then that alternative theory is strengthened, and conversely, the theory his team is proposing is weakened. To maximize the probability of their theory being accepted, they have to take negligence off the table as much as possible. The judge will still consider it (though Contador denied taking any supplements, the CAS panel still considered it, and in fact ruled that as the most likely explanation), but it will be given less weight if Froome is adamant that he didn’t make a mistake.

This is why Froome's approach is high risk. As long as he wants to be exonerated completely, he has to deny any possibility of negligence. Maybe at some point he could change his mind, as Parker suggests, but only if he's willing to give up on his alternative theory prematurely, before he's completely committed to it. He can't stick with it all the way, then, after receiving a long suspension, concede he could have made a mistake. He has to go one way or the other by the time he reaches CADF.

 

[Parker]

Re: Re:

LA consider JU biggest rival in those years and majority of public as well. Everyone was waiting for July what the shape of JU will be and correct with few exceptions it was not that good. Sometimes it was not his mistake, I remember, that one year he crashed into team car during the training just few days before the beginning of the Tour... .

In seven years of Armstrong winning, Ullrich never wore the Yellow Jersey. How many times did he take time on Armstrong? The 2003 Time Trial. Anything else? I can't remember anything.

As rivalries go it was as one-sided as Tom and Jerry. The same with Contador v Schleck.

In the real world, Contador and Quintana have actually beaten Froome in a Grand Tour

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

You are right, of course...but that isn't the point pastronef is making.

I'm sure pastonef will respond and straighten me out.

I know the Tour winner is going to be the biggest story and Sky set it up themselves (here one could open the debate about why THEY NEEDED, in 2010, to come up with all thar PR stuff: to hook the British public...)

anyway, as someone said a few posts before, Sky beat those teams at their own game.
but while claiming clean! so that does not go with the peloton omertá style. better shut up, we know.
(well, Nibali said he´s the flagbearer of clean cycling while riding fo Astana...)

for sure Sky deserves the flak (Froome/Wiggo the most) but I have seen Thomas and Porte insulted, people asking for hospital pictures of Henao after his Suisse crash, people blaming Sky for the Apollonio doping positive of 2015 (3 years after he left Sky) people turning their backs to Kwiato, people sending dollars pictures to Nieve when he signed. and so on. nothing ever seen towards other teams/riders. and many of those people said they were anti-doping, while cheering for anyone, any doper, to beat Sky.
this makes me cheer for them, and hoping that the people who want see their heads on spikes won´t enjoy it fully. and hoping Sky wont crash down in style.
and I´d add, that if Sky crash and folds, the other teams will go on normally, cycling will go on, no problem, with the same mistakes and questions. the Sky (as the Arnstrong) downfall wouldnt save "cycling"

Beat them at their own game, aye? Well, sure, by exponetially increasing the capital base, Sky was able to put together a team of the best riders and hire, mostly, old European DSs, with "top shelf" and avant garde dope, UCI compliance, to imperialistically subjugate the competition. Makes things a tad bit easier. Add a state of art PR (propaganda) campaign orchestrated by Murdoch pros and you have everyone believing in the mystical teachings of Dave about marginal gains and "warming down" after the fisnish as the secret formulas of success. The reality though is that the others simply didn't have the budgets to keep up and the results at the Tour, the greatest coroporate cycling extravaganza in the world, make this unequivocal.

Got to give them credit, despite everything else, for leading people to buying into it.

So it really wasn't necessary for the roster you mention to then behave in the peleton like Snape's Gryffindor team at Hogwarts. This doesn't exactly engender any sympathy when things go south.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

One is angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged one's pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as one dislikes bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw one out of one's fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here

It's a rhetorical use of 'we'.

But just for you I've edited my quoted post and removed any trace of 'we'

 

[macbindle]

Re:

And let me get this right, you couldn’t give two dog **** if someone injects a barrel load of EPO as long as the don’t to try people that they are clean?

Amazing logic

Personally? No, I don't really care what they do that much. The Tour has always been a fiction. I don't know of any time when it hasn't involved vast quantities of substances to enable the heroic feats of athleticism.

But that wasn't really the point of my post. I was distilling and satirising some of the disjointed thinking I've seen expressed here, which I find a little hypocritical. Possibly unintentionally, but hypocritical nevertheless.

My view on Team Sky? I hope they disappear. Not because I think they cheat, because on that basis there wouldn't be that many left on the start line and certainly none of the stars. No, far more to do with what Rhubroma talks about above with what you might call the "Manchester United" effect.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

One is angry at Froome not because he doped, but because he challenged one's pretence that he wasn't.

In much the same way as one dislikes bad actors in a movie, poor special effects, poor continuity or anything which threatens to draw one out of one's fantasy and back into reality.


Also he looks *** on a bike.

Who are we? The clinic is not all one, I don’t think you speak for everyone on here

It's a rhetorical use of 'we'.

But just for you I've edited my quoted post and removed any trace of 'we'

you speak for me if no-one else

 

[macbindle]

My pleasure

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

My pleasure

my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

My pleasure

my preferred analogy is that after pushing kylie, jason, sinitta etc on us SAW went too far with Big Fun...Froome is Big Fun...... they've taken it toooooo far....

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment, but i have to say that is one of the best analogies i've heard in a long time. Brilliant! :lol: :lol: :lol: