Will he have a 'poor day' tomorrow loose a bit of time and make it a little more believeable? Brailsfraud didn't seem over the moon about the utter charade that happened today, has he realised it was too much?
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Well, they probably only know that because they are also all cheating, and are aware that only someone else who is cheating could finish ahead of them. Saying that this guy is cheating, just doing it better than me, is a pretty difficult line to sell to the general public though.Saint Unix said:
Re: Re:
Certainly not their Model 3
bigcog said:DanielSong39 said:
I heard a rumour Sky are working with Telsa
Certainly not their Model 3
Re:
If it's any consolation I've been watching since 1984 and it's comfortably in my top ten. I hardly ever post here, think the last time was over a year ago but I just couldn't let today pass without comment.
Sadly one of the things that I'd expect is enabling Froome at the moment is the UCI. They seem to be right back in the Armstrong conundrum again, where they're terrified of jerking the chain of one of the big names of the moment because they know the damage that yet another major scandal would do to the sport, yet by not doing so they're arguably doing at least as much damage themselves.
I'm genuinely amazed that Froome and Sky are being allowed to let the adverse analytical finding saga drag on this long. I mean it's a relatively simple matter, the finding itself hasn't been disputed and it happened in early September - it's now eight months on, I mean what exactly are they pretending is taking so long to analyze? What new facts are supposedly still going to emerge over and above what is known today, or come to that six months ago? Are they hoping that everybody will just forget about it, or that maybe they'll become distracted by the heat death of the universe?
Are Team Sly just going to be allowed to continue their 'fact finding' until he retires? It's an absolute joke and the only reason the UCI haven't lost all credibility because of it is that frankly, they'd already lost all credibility long before this. There is no hope for the sport as long as the governing body is so weak. The fish rots from the head.
Forever The Best said:
If it's any consolation I've been watching since 1984 and it's comfortably in my top ten. I hardly ever post here, think the last time was over a year ago but I just couldn't let today pass without comment.
Sadly one of the things that I'd expect is enabling Froome at the moment is the UCI. They seem to be right back in the Armstrong conundrum again, where they're terrified of jerking the chain of one of the big names of the moment because they know the damage that yet another major scandal would do to the sport, yet by not doing so they're arguably doing at least as much damage themselves.
I'm genuinely amazed that Froome and Sky are being allowed to let the adverse analytical finding saga drag on this long. I mean it's a relatively simple matter, the finding itself hasn't been disputed and it happened in early September - it's now eight months on, I mean what exactly are they pretending is taking so long to analyze? What new facts are supposedly still going to emerge over and above what is known today, or come to that six months ago? Are they hoping that everybody will just forget about it, or that maybe they'll become distracted by the heat death of the universe?
Are Team Sly just going to be allowed to continue their 'fact finding' until he retires? It's an absolute joke and the only reason the UCI haven't lost all credibility because of it is that frankly, they'd already lost all credibility long before this. There is no hope for the sport as long as the governing body is so weak. The fish rots from the head.
Re: Re:
You do realise other AAF salbutamol cases took a similar length of time to be resolved ?
OldCranky said:
You do realise other AAF salbutamol cases took a similar length of time to be resolved ?
Froome giro101 #19 hd gifs:
https://gfycat.com/OilyIdolizedGavial
https://gfycat.com/DistinctBogusCassowary
https://gfycat.com/OilyIdolizedGavial
https://gfycat.com/DistinctBogusCassowary
Dawg is a toxic carbuncle on this sport. He sickens me; I who have followed cycling for over 50+ years. I may give it up until he is gone and hopefully goes the way of Armstrong.....
Re:
Yep. Don't find that any less amazing. I'm not suggesting that you can wrap these things up in three days but as I said, there is simply no plausible reason why it should take that amount of time and today is a prime example of why it's a problem. As I said the finding itself isn't in dispute as far as I'm aware so how exactly does it take eight months to genuinely establish how it happened?
I have to admit I did find myself with a very small nugget of grudging respect for the complete and utter lack of craps he gives. He and his team clearly either think/know they're bulletproof or simply don't care.
bigcog said:
Yep. Don't find that any less amazing. I'm not suggesting that you can wrap these things up in three days but as I said, there is simply no plausible reason why it should take that amount of time and today is a prime example of why it's a problem. As I said the finding itself isn't in dispute as far as I'm aware so how exactly does it take eight months to genuinely establish how it happened?
armchairclimber said:
I have to admit I did find myself with a very small nugget of grudging respect for the complete and utter lack of craps he gives. He and his team clearly either think/know they're bulletproof or simply don't care.
I have to offer a contrarian opinion: that was genius. I almost feel slightly euphoric.
These kinds of stages are central to what pro-cycling is all about; we all remember them for decades and to some degree, they are expressive of the quintessence of the sport. i.e. find any way to reap the glory/cash.
I'll look for justice in political philosophy, nobility in humble people and all out competition for scarce resources (without rules) in cycling.
These kinds of stages are central to what pro-cycling is all about; we all remember them for decades and to some degree, they are expressive of the quintessence of the sport. i.e. find any way to reap the glory/cash.
I'll look for justice in political philosophy, nobility in humble people and all out competition for scarce resources (without rules) in cycling.
It's worthy of note that no one has been suspended today for doping talk on the stage thread or Froome discussion on PRR. Was everyone struck dumb, or has there been a collective decision by mods to look away?
The Hegelian:
Oh, I don't think it's one or the other. It was an awesome stage, I had lots of fun watching it and it'll be remembered for decades. It was also completely unbelievable (above the standards of pro cycling).
Oh, I don't think it's one or the other. It was an awesome stage, I had lots of fun watching it and it'll be remembered for decades. It was also completely unbelievable (above the standards of pro cycling).
A scary thought comes to mind: has he been this good for the entire Giro?
Just holding back, feigning (apart from the crash) waiting to be truly unleashed?
Just holding back, feigning (apart from the crash) waiting to be truly unleashed?
Re:
Ketones or uranium in that small bottle?
ooo said:Froome giro101 #19 hd gifs:
https://gfycat.com/OilyIdolizedGavial
https://gfycat.com/DistinctBogusCassowary
Ketones or uranium in that small bottle?
ahsoe said:
One also has to ask: in other GT's where he has had a comfortable lead - could he have been winning by 15 minutes if he wanted to?
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
That happened. Oh my.
I thought Froome was cooling his jets a little, then this occurs.
I used to, years ago, believe what I saw and figure if it wasn't legit, I'd find out later. Then after all the doping scandals over the years, I quickly came to feel that if it looked too good to be true, too transformational, then it was BS and hey, perhaps in future years if nothing changed, I'd change my mind.
So glad I and no one I care about got into pro sports. What a f*cking ridiculous display. Usually the hubris comes out after about 4-5 years at the top!
That happened. Oh my.
I thought Froome was cooling his jets a little, then this occurs.
I used to, years ago, believe what I saw and figure if it wasn't legit, I'd find out later. Then after all the doping scandals over the years, I quickly came to feel that if it looked too good to be true, too transformational, then it was BS and hey, perhaps in future years if nothing changed, I'd change my mind.
So glad I and no one I care about got into pro sports. What a f*cking ridiculous display. Usually the hubris comes out after about 4-5 years at the top!
Re:
This above is what I felt after seeing this result - it reminds me more of Lance than Landis i.e. to ride like this, while an investigation is pending, is reckless
This above is what I felt after seeing this result - it reminds me more of Lance than Landis i.e. to ride like this, while an investigation is pending, is reckless
The Hegelian said:
Froome is in a league of his own. He can do pretty much whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He's definitely on some next-gen stuff. Instead of scanning Froome's bike, scan his body.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 359
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram