Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

Pointless is thinking Froome/Sky are clean.

It is not a safe position as there no dangerous positions to take think either way.

Claiming that someone posts a picture prooving mechanical doping is not proof but at the same time not showing us real time images of bikes being xrayed or a parc ferme system does not proove motors are not in use.

Hinault claimed Froome is not a Legend of the sport. I have not claimed Hinault was clean or not part of the omertà. He just thinks that Froome has no panache and is too obvious. It is simple.

Trying to obfuscate is boring.

I dont cherry pick. They all dope.

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

What a great post! Cheers!

Indeed. https://youtu.be/IxAKFlpdcfc

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

Pointless is thinking Froome/Sky are clean.

It is not a safe position as there no dangerous positions to take think either way.

Claiming that someone posts a picture prooving mechanical doping is not proof but at the same time not showing us real time images of bikes being xrayed or a parc ferme system does not proove motors are not in use.

Hinault claimed Froome is not a Legend of the sport. I have not claimed Hinault was clean or not part of the omertà. He just thinks that Froome has no panache and is too obvious. It is simple.

Trying to obfuscate is boring.

I dont cherry pick. They all dope.

I am not arguing that Froome or Sky are clean. I get that you are trying to declare me as a heretic.

All the wrong points you made are still wrong.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

Pointless is thinking Froome/Sky are clean.

It is not a safe position as there no dangerous positions to take think either way.

Claiming that someone posts a picture prooving mechanical doping is not proof but at the same time not showing us real time images of bikes being xrayed or a parc ferme system does not proove motors are not in use.

Hinault claimed Froome is not a Legend of the sport. I have not claimed Hinault was clean or not part of the omertà. He just thinks that Froome has no panache and is too obvious. It is simple.

Trying to obfuscate is boring.

I dont cherry pick. They all dope.

All the wrong points you made are still wrong.

federations or the media...not some random numpty on the internet who can press enter

 

[macbindle]

Meaning?

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Meaning?

i understand the 'skeptics' to mean reasonably well-placed skeptics i.e. those who have something to lose by expressing an opinion such a journos or federations...not some random 'guy on the internet' whom you've alighted on as an example of a skeptic...and so I think that point stands more scrutiny that you otherwise give it

that's all

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

Meaning?

i understand the 'skeptics' to mean reasonably well-placed skeptics i.e. those who have something to lose by expressing an opinion such a journos or federations...not some random 'guy on the internet' whom you've alighted on as an example of a skeptic...and so I think that point stands more scrutiny that you otherwise give it

that's all

Except Bennoti69 did not make that distinction, and he went on to unload his mind in a rather messy way as to why he is a sceptic. Also the conditions apply to all sceptics with the caveat that high profile sceptics may be subject to litigation.

I'm a sceptic too, as it happens, but this is borne out of a few informed points with which I expect you (judging by your posts) and Benotti would agree.

However, I don't think scepticism is a justification in itself for then posting whatever you like. Just because I think Sky are cheats, doesn't mean I have to accept utter nonsense posted by others even if the end result is the same.

I feel it devalues my position. Hence my challenging Bennotti. There are rational, evidence-based reasons to be think Froome cheats.No need for tin-foil hattery.

Benotti is clearly uncomfortable having his statements challenged by somebody with the same core beliefs as himself hence his desperate attempt to denounce me as a heretic.

 

[dacooley]

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

excellent post which sums it up perfectly well. but all of us comprehend the nature of the thread quite properly. at this point, it's all pretty much down to endless sorrowful lamentations about what a joke a sport of cycling became, injustice of the universe where the most untalented rider ever makes a fool the entire cycling community, comparisons to lance etc, etc... anyone, who had defied hog and bennoti and tried to defend froome to the death, ultimately were accused of trolling and banned. the remaining froome supporters turned out to be smarter and focused on discussions in rr subforum. serious and thorough posters like MI prefer to speak out strictly on the subject. so we have what we have. most clinic regular posters just enjoy cherry-picking any arguments that suit their agenda.

 

[macbindle]

I'm not really au fait with the history or the politics of these threads of the Clinic forum as a whole. I'm a sporadic reader of this board and I've missed all the spats that have resulted in bans (I think)

I'm just not a fan of people posting nonsense on social media and expecting to get away with it...and I'd extend that to both sides of this rather binary argument.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

I'm not really au fait with the history or the politics of these threads of the Clinic forum as a whole. I'm a sporadic reader of this board and I've missed all the spats that have resulted in bans (I think)

I'm just not a fan of people posting nonsense on social media and expecting to get away with it...and I'd extend that to both sides of this rather binary argument.

You post at least once a day since you joined. Not really sporadic.

The argument is not binary. Sky are doping/cheating. It is singular.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

I'm not really au fait with the history or the politics of these threads of the Clinic forum as a whole. I'm a sporadic reader of this board and I've missed all the spats that have resulted in bans (I think)

I'm just not a fan of people posting nonsense on social media and expecting to get away with it...and I'd extend that to both sides of this rather binary argument.

You post at least once a day since you joined. Not really sporadic.

.Yes, and the most frequent thread I post on is US politics. Until recently I've barely posted in the Clinic board

The argument is not binary. Sky are doping/cheating. It is singular.

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

If you stopped going off on one all the time and drew breath you'd realise that the post of mine which you quoted was a polite way of saying to Dacooley "Don't look to me to support a pro-Sky position".

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

The problem for Froome is that any attack he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief, even if his attack is actually relatively modest. Witness the reaction to Stage 19 Giro. An immediate spray of polemic from some cycling journos (at least one in every major cycling website I read) and some ex-riders. This was followed by more measured analysis from other current and ex-riders.

I think regardless of all the reasonable points that could be made in support of Froome's reputation (first serial GT winner after Armstrong exposure, self-referential and polarizing effect of social media etc etc) it speaks volumes about the way Sky have conducted themselves over 8 years that it has come to this.

he makes has sceptics flailing their arms in disbelief

“Name one instance where the rumour-mill on doping has been proved wrong and Federations and/or the Media have had to issue a grovelling apology about the claims made to the rider concerned?’ “

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2018/06/01/the-vv-view-are-you-still-a-believer/

The sceptics are always right. So trying to name call really is a waste of bytes.

Hitch is right. Froome is higher than EPO riders. Name 1 EPO fulled generation rider that won 3 GTs in a row.

Froome is making a mockery of the sport so much that those strong omertarists like Hinault and Millar/York are disgusted!

That is a pretty pointless remark if you stop to think about it. When it comes to doping the sceptics cannot be proved wrong. It's a very safe position to take because as we know it is possible for riders to avoid testing positive.

But you are also wrong. The sceptics are not always right. A week ago somebody posted a picture of Froome moving his hand on his bar. Proof of mechanical doping. Somebody posted a video of Froome drinking from a small bottle. Proof of doping, apparently.

The people who make these claims are most likely just as wrong as the people who claim Froome is clean.

You are also wrong in your invocation of Hinault. What he said wasnt to do with Froome's attack. He was talking about Froome's presence at the Giro having an AAF. He was also wrong in what he said. He clearly doesn't understand the technicalities and the difference between different substances and the rules surrounding them. He is also wrong to criticise Froome for riding. The rules allow Froome to ride, therefore if Hinault doesn't like it he should call for a change to the rules. You are also wrong when you sarcastically refer to Hinault as an omertist. Hinault has been quite happy to be an omertist when it has suited him. Quite happy to sit in the little red car with Indurain, who was essentially a nicer version of Armstrong. Perhaps you've forgotten Hinault's own issues with dope... the time he led a rider protest against the imposition of doping controls, and refused a dope test two days after winning the TdF?

Equally, you are wrong to cherry-pick your evidence to suit your argument. You cite Hinault (and get it wrong) but you don't quote the greatest cyclist in history, Eddy M, who stated categorically that he had no problem at all with Froome's victory. Why didn't you attempt a more balanced post?
.
Name-calling? What names have I called anybody?

Pointless is thinking Froome/Sky are clean.

It is not a safe position as there no dangerous positions to take think either way.

Claiming that someone posts a picture prooving mechanical doping is not proof but at the same time not showing us real time images of bikes being xrayed or a parc ferme system does not proove motors are not in use.

Hinault claimed Froome is not a Legend of the sport. I have not claimed Hinault was clean or not part of the omertà. He just thinks that Froome has no panache and is too obvious. It is simple.

Trying to obfuscate is boring.

I dont cherry pick. They all dope.

You are out of touch with reality - Why should you have access to the UCI x-raying bikes ? It would hardly make for rivetting viewing - I suppose you could organise your own production company to take these pics/videos and post them in this forum.

 

[keeponrollin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/44372328

SDB is brilliant...you could literally have taken his transparency bit and allotted it to any time frame in SKYs existence...once again it all comes down to faith...not action

SDB knighted for services to bullsh*t

I know i shouldn't say it, but that's a great write up of the stage as it unfolded. The fuelling bit, or at least the importance of it does sound like nonsense, but the tactics, the timings....no BS there, we saw it all happen exactly as he said.

Ignoring the second half of the article, just like the stage itself in realtime, wether it was fiction or non fiction, i really enjoyed it

Can't abide Brailsford, he'd have been better keeping his take in it out. The narrative though is interesting and does tie in exactly with what we saw as the stage unfolded. Kelly or one of the other pundits was even saying at the time that every member of the Sky team was out on the road with food and drink. It was a brutal and audacious plan ... but even so, to actually pull it off was quite incredible and required all sorts of circumstance to allow it (especially within the Dumo group).

Never been a fan of Froome but It was hard not to be impressed by the chutzpah, whatever the clinic angle.

As ever; SDB is full of shit.

I just re-watched the assent, & you can see the Sky had exactly the same number of refuelling locations on Finestre. He made is sound like they were rounding up porters from the hotel to hand out bottles. I watched & Froome passed 3x Sky guys, & got one bottle from the team car, now he might have gotten, maybe one other off camera, but that's still only 5x people, & all the other teams had at least 4x people on the road; the idea that there was a Sky guy ever 100m along the road is complete & utter Bullshit.

This is just another case of a Fanboi masquerading as a journalist, & publishing more Sky marginal gains BS, without engaging their brain.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You are out of touch with reality - Why should you have access to the UCI x-raying bikes ? It would hardly make for rivetting viewing - I suppose you could organise your own production company to take these pics/videos and post them in this forum.

Purely in the interests of transparency. Some would love to see x-rays. The same fans that pick different frame manufacturers over others etc....

X-rays have become quite fashionable in the art world.

F1 is hardly rivetting viewing but lots watch it.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue, trolls, sky interns or are paid to argue that.

Been there before with Armstrong threads and the Public Securites PR company.

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

Sorry but the culture to dope is not in doubt. Sky still have Servais Knaven working for them FFS!

If long term fans of the sport still think there are possible clean teams, well as Jan Ullrich said "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help."

What has changed since Ullrich's time. Zero.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

I'm sorry but anyone who was a pro on an Italian team in the 90's knows better than that. If that was true they know that there isn't a pro team that isn't doping most of the riders.
If the person was really a pro then they are just playing you and the Omerta is still strong...or its just something you made up...like some studies you cant name

 

[macbindle]

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

Sorry but the culture to dope is not in doubt. Sky still have Servais Knaven working for them FFS!

If long term fans of the sport still think there are possible clean teams, well as Jan Ullrich said "Whoever still can't put one and one together about what happened in cycling is beyond my help."

What has changed since Ullrich's time. Zero.

Again, you are leaping about typing before thinking.

You claimed that all Sky beliebers/defenders are new to the sport. I have shown you that you are wrong. Some of them aren't.

There is no reply for you to make here, other than acknowledge that you said something untrue.

You can't just go "Waaa! Sky are dopers" as an answer to every single thing.

Stop and think.

 

[Benotti69]

Kerrison (sky sports scientist) to BBC; "we had reconnoitred the Finestre by mistake"

Froome own Instagram account in June last year he posted he knew exactly where the Finestre was & that it was in the Giro - he has a video of him talking about it. Clearly not “by mistake”

Sky trying to rewrite history just like Brailsford saying that Wiggins having left before the team bus and the arrival of said Jiffy Bag and then Wiggins was on the bus administering contents of the bag.

Ah well, they do so much cleaning they cant remember every little detail.............

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Again, you are leaping about typing before thinking.

You claimed that all Sky beliebers/defenders are new to the sport. I have shown you that you are wrong. Some of them aren't.

There is no reply for you to make here, other than acknowledge that you said something untrue.

You can't just go "Waaa! Sky are dopers" as an answer to every single thing.

Stop and think.

You didn't show me anything. You claim to have friends who are not convinced Sky are cheating, which i claim they have lost the power of logical and reasoned thinking or don't bother thinking about doping and would rather remain ingorant of tha aspect of the sport, which i accept is lots of people choice.

That dont make Sky clean.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

I'm sorry but anyone who was a pro on an Italian team in the 90's knows better than that. If that was true they know that there isn't a pro team that isn't doping most of the riders.
If the person was really a pro then they are just playing you and the Omerta is still strong...or its just something you made up...like some studies you cant name

Italian 90s pro teams only doped with Bread and Olive Oil. :lol:

 

[macbindle]

Re: Re:

If it is singular then there would be nobody arguing that Sky are a clean team.

Those arguing that Sky are a clean team are fans very new to the sport and have no clue

Well...you are wrong about that. I have had many an animated conversation with a clubmate, 65 years old, former first category racer....

I have a friend who is an ex-pro on an Italian team in the 1990s. He's open-minded, but not convinced that Sky are a dirty team.

I disagree with them, but they are not as you describe. They know a lot more about cycling and racing than I do, and maybe you?

I'm sorry but anyone who was a pro on an Italian team in the 90's knows better than that. If that was true they know that there isn't a pro team that isn't doping most of the riders.
If the person was really a pro then they are just playing you and the Omerta is still strong...or its just something you made up...like some studies you cant name

You'd be surprised. I've had some very interesting conversations with him about his experiences in the 90's. Some of which I won't share.

I've also had some very interesting conversations with him about the current situation. He isn't cynical. Yes, I was surprised too.

But hey, you know better

 

[Djoop]

Deleted post

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

You are out of touch with reality - Why should you have access to the UCI x-raying bikes ? It would hardly make for rivetting viewing - I suppose you could organise your own production company to take these pics/videos and post them in this forum.

Purely in the interests of transparency. Some would love to see x-rays. The same fans that pick different frame manufacturers over others etc....

X-rays have become quite fashionable in the art world.

F1 is hardly rivetting viewing but lots watch it.

Yet to see the TV coverage of a F1 race show x-raying of cars.