Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Those particular TDF's can't be even called competition in the official books as by the definition a competition must have a winner.

Guess I must be imagining all those drawn football games and cricket matches. Silly me...

Aaaawww how cute of you being smart :redface:

Oops, I did it again. Now I hadn't realised smarts - the ability to think - was frowned upon. I'll book my lobotomy tomorrow...

Just the right pills on the morning, just the right pills. And no, this time I won't give sitation.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.

 

[spetsa]

Re:

Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.

Did you forget the minor fact that Froome already has, not might, test positive.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.

Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping

LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

Some assistance please, as I'm struggling.

Over here we have a rule that says if we catch you doping, we can strip you of victories.

Over here, we have a crowd with pitchforks and flaming torches screaming that stripping someone of victory brings disrepute upon a race.

So are we to not apply that rule we have? Is there to be a doping hall pass - we'll let you do it, but only if you win? Isn't that what so many believe Verbruggen and McQuaid did during those years we dare not think of anymore? Are we now to believe they done right?

But, the pitchfork wielding crowd say, we can diminish the damage of not applying that rule by going for a hallucinatory reimagining of the disrepute rule and placing some crazy emphasis on the word might. We can stop you riding, the crowd says, if you might pop a positive and so might bring disrepute upon our glorious, untarnished enterprise.

My problem here though, is this: if Jesus Christ himself, or Gandhi, or Buddah, or whoever your emodiment of purity is, if that person turned up a the start of the Giro there is the possibilty they might pop a positive: they could be spiked, their kidneys could malfunction or the tinfoil hatted cynics could even be right and everyone - EVERYONE! - dopes. So that embodiment of purity, following the fatuous argument of the torch bearers, has to be pre-emptively banned. Cause (get this) might is right. In which case, whither cycling with dumb assed thinking like that, who's to ride our races, with dumb assed thinking like that? Answer: you, you and you, cause we like you. For now.

Did you forget the minor fact that Froome already has, not might, test positive.

Delivered AAF with Salbutamol over the limit and thus under investigation whether tested positive or not. That is important correction and there I actually am with Froome defenders.

BUT - given the situation, there is significantly higher chance that Froome might disrepute the sport and the race than Jesus Christ, Buddha or Gandhi, unless those happy chaps are also under investigation of doping violation.

I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that we are, with flaming torches, saying that the race organizers should select the drivers they ike most, because that is not at all what at least I'm saying.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.

Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping

LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.

Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.

Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping

LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.

Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.

It seems as though there are 2 members who have a goal of posting complete nonsense in response to every post, hoping that they simply discourage anyone from being interested in participating in the forum. I thought that was trolling.

 

[ferryman]

Re: Re:

TOS ... didn't know you were sitting on a fastball. My bad for the slider. Let me translate for you.

The poster, to whom I responded, seemed to have tremendous "faith" that Giro organizers could successfully demonstrate that Froome's participation in the Giro might bring the sport and/or event into disrepute ... despite the fact that previous doping cases have spared the sport significant, measurable disrepute and damage.

Sorry, what??? I've heard it all now.

Tell that to the numerous sponsors who have pulled out because of previous doping cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/19/rabobank-ends-cycling-sponsorship-doping

LMFAO at Rabo - Rabo! - as a shining example of a sponsor scared off by doping. Who's nect, Disco? Telekom? Mercatone Uno? Banesto? Molteni?

The furthere we get from the past, the less people understand it. And the more they just make up crap about it.

Well a few things. One, this is simply the first example of a sponsor pulling out I could find in 2 seconds. There are many. Two, yes, they pulled out because of the optics around doping, not because they didn't know or cared about doping. They simply determined it was bad for business and left. They cared about doping scandals, not doping. Obviously.

The idea that somehow people are denying that doping scandals have hurt cycling just blows my mind. How does someone get to this place? What level of ignorance of what's happened and denial can we really achieve here?

Just amazing.

Indeed. The 2nd biggest country in Europe agrees with you. How many years was it that German t/v refused to cover the TDF. 4?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Spetsa - 2 members is small fry compared to the Lance era.
Michelle needs to up her budget.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

Indeed. The 2nd biggest country in Europe agrees with you. How many years was it that German t/v refused to cover the TDF. 4?

Exactly. No damage there, move along! :lol:

It seems as though there are 2 members who have a goal of posting complete nonsense in response to every post, hoping that they simply discourage anyone from being interested in participating in the forum. I thought that was trolling.

Well I can't speak to intent, but reading the posts I responded to did make me mentally throw up my hands a bit. Had the "what's the point of discussion if such things are actually being debated" moment. Certainly we're unlikely to get to any salient points when people are debating simple facts, long since understood by anyone and everyone following the sport.

 

[veganrob]

Even in the Lance era it was possible to have a civilized discussion.

 

[spetsa]

Re:

Spetsa - 2 members is small fry compared to the Lance era.
Michelle needs to up her budget.

At least during the LA era, there were enough truly informed, interested​ in debunking the crap being spewed. I won't repeat the words out of fear of moderator reprimand, but Brodeal comes to mind.

 

[slosada]

And a quick check shows the USA TV audience dropped from ~18M to ~11M by 2012/2013. And has not recovered yet.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/229087/people-who-watched-the-tour-de-france-on-tv-within-the-last-12-months-usa/
To be fair, it could well be the fact of having the superhero uniball image in the race.

OTOH, general public, July fans, whatever you want to call them, have now a great contempt

 

[gillan1969]

...and its difficult to measure those that didn't start sponsoring in the first place because of the PED issue

 

[fmk_RoI]

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

 

[veganrob]

Can you provide us with a link for that claim?

 

[spetsa]

Re:

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.

No, think you are overpaid. You over value your contributions and under value others'.

 

[red_flanders]

...and its difficult to measure those that didn't start sponsoring in the first place because of the PED issue

Yes, agree it's difficult to measure quantitavely. However, one can refer to comments from team managers and various organizing bodies over the years citing the doping issue in difficulty in landing sponsors. Too many examples to list, it's been happening regularly since Festina.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Can you provide us with a link for that claim?

I believe you will find it discussed in this book, among other places which anyone following the economic debate would be aware of: https://www.podiumcafe.com/book-corner/2015/11/21/9774430/the-economics-of-professional-road-cycling-edited-by-daam-van-reeth

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

matters can be discussed with disagreement without anyone clinging...that is what....er.....debate is

 

[fmk_RoI]

...and its difficult to measure those that didn't start sponsoring in the first place because of the PED issue

Yes, agree it's difficult to measure quantitavely. However, one can refer to comments from team managers and various organizing bodies over the years citing the doping issue in difficulty in landing sponsors. Too many examples to list, it's been happening regularly since Festina.

Sod the facts, second- and third-hand anecdotal evidence, that's what matters. So long as it supports my belief system...

 

[spetsa]

Re: Re:

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

So are my wages, but I'm still under paid.

No, think you are overpaid. You over value your contributions and under value others'.

If your only response is a personal attack, prepare yourself for more. I could care less if I were perma banned from this place.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

The income from sponsors of the top ranked teams - TT1/PT/WT - is greater today than it was in 2012, greater today than it was in 2005, greater today than it was in 1998. Doping really is destroying cycling's reputation.

(Cue the magic of the imaginative might and the impossible to prove claim that today's income might be higher without doping. Then again, without doping keeping the sport in the news, it might be worse. Cling to whichever article of faith keeps you afloat, if that is the level of your 'debate'.)

As mentioned above, 4 years of German TV revenue were lost specifically because of doping scandals. That is specific, measurable, and damaging––to the original claim.

Your (apparent but unstated) claim that no damage has been done is demonstrably false. Of course one can never know what wages would have been without scandal, and one has to recognize that scandal has by and large diminished in the last few years. By design. For a very specific reason...revenue.

Shall we start a thread on this? It appears wildly off-topic.

 

[Parker]

If the Giro are worried about doping scaring away sponsors (aside: they aren't) they probably shouldn't have proclaimed the 2014 route as a tribute to Pantani. They'll probably celebrate the 20th anniversary of his Giro win this year too..