• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1335 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?
Just supposing that's so, wasn't the kicking out of Cookson (who was untrusted by all non-British critics in particular) and his replacement with that nice Monsieur Lappartient supposed to knock anything like that on the head?
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?


the proof is Armstrong????


this is all about Chris Froome


I don't need to prove anything, I'm not the one making up lies on a forum
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?

The examples of UCI collusion to protect riders goes beyond Armstrong. Contador's positive which was being covered up leaps to mind. There is Brochard's backdated TUE in '99, the Landis fiasco, Basso, DiLuca, and on and on. Prudhomme said at one point,

“...I trust nobody — least of all the UCI. We were ready to work with the UCI to fight doping and have supported them financially. But when you have made an alliance, looked the other person right in the eyes, then you expect to be told the truth. But that didn’t happen… …You can’t make the Tour de France responsible for everything… We also have an international federation, but they are worth nothing. The UCI never wanted a clean Tour.”

The CIRC report cited riders saying,
"that they believed Therapeutic Use Exemptions were and are “systematically used” as part of doping. Moreover, one rider who spoke to CIRC claimed that 90 per cent of all TUEs were used for performance enhancement."

Anyone who imagines what happened with Froome is anything but a pure whitewash is ignorant of the history of the UCI, or in the case of anyone actually following the sport, delusional.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

No, where did i "imply" that? I was saying that Froome wields enough power similar to Wonderboy, in that he can pretty much have positives swept under the rug and nothing happens to him(at least not yet anyways).

No proof to show he did this to Cobo. But what i said about him having A LOT of power, is spot on.

You honestly believe Froome wasnt doping then either? Lol.
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?


the proof is Armstrong????


this is all about Chris Froome


I don't need to prove anything, I'm not the one making up lies on a forum
What "lies" have i made up?

I related Froomes doping cover ups, and such to Armstrong, as it appears he's gaining A LOT of power, similar to that of Wonderboy.

I'm sorry you're favorite rider is most likely a doper too, but don't have a meltdown when someone tries pointing it out, ala Wonderboy, and his fan club doesn't believe it.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?

The examples of UCI collusion to protect riders goes beyond Armstrong. Contador's positive which was being covered up leaps to mind. There is Brochard's backdated TUE in '99, the Landis fiasco, Basso, DiLuca, and on and on. Prudhomme said at one point,

“...I trust nobody — least of all the UCI. We were ready to work with the UCI to fight doping and have supported them financially. But when you have made an alliance, looked the other person right in the eyes, then you expect to be told the truth. But that didn’t happen… …You can’t make the Tour de France responsible for everything… We also have an international federation, but they are worth nothing. The UCI never wanted a clean Tour.”

The CIRC report cited riders saying,
"that they believed Therapeutic Use Exemptions were and are “systematically used” as part of doping. Moreover, one rider who spoke to CIRC claimed that 90 per cent of all TUEs were used for performance enhancement."

Anyone who imagines what happened with Froome is anything but a pure whitewash is ignorant of the history of the UCI, or in the case of anyone actually following the sport, delusional.

Thank you
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
gillan1969 said:
rick james said:
86TDFWinner said:
Red Rick said:
Legit wonder if they had this up their sleeve all this time and are only doing it now because of the circumstances.

Good point. Froome seems to have nearly the same power in this sport as Wonderboy did, which is sad.
So you are implying that Froome has got the UCI to hand this ban out to cobo?


Show us proof of that one please

the proof is Armstrong......or at least in these matters you are unlikely to get 'proof'...Armstrong is however evidence...that evidence being the only time a case has been forensically examined that was the what the evidence pointed to.....the question would be why would it have changed...where's your 'proof' it has changed?

I don't agree with 86TDFwinner in this instance, but you can't ignore that there has been demonstrable evidence of collusion (or at the least a symbiotic relationship) between the sport's governing body and its most successful riders?
Just supposing that's so, wasn't the kicking out of Cookson (who was untrusted by all non-British critics in particular) and his replacement with that nice Monsieur Lappartient supposed to knock anything like that on the head?

....only if you take a narrow and partisan view of the UCI (and world)...the king is dead...long live the king
 
Surely you guys understand the difference between "Collusion between the UCI and key riders is well documented" and "Froome personally had the UCI go after Cobo". You may want to explore the merits of the latter theory, but so far there is nothing to support it, and the timeline is hard to reconcile with such a directed effort.

You don't need to support every inane statement that rick challenges.
 
Have to agree that there is little real evidence of the official story. Froome crashed in a town, was treated there for hours, breaks anything and everything, and we have nothing to show for it. No bystander photographs, even Poels "didn't want to look", he even didnt go back to help his teammate, which I found very strange myself. The conspiracy guys can be easily shut up with a few photographs from Ineos/Froome. If they don't release anything, these rumours will remain.
 
Re:

Swingtop said:
Have to agree that there is little real evidence of the official story. Froome crashed in a town, was treated there for hours, breaks anything and everything, and we have nothing to show for it. No bystander photographs, even Poels "didn't want to look", he even didnt go back to help his teammate, which I found very strange myself. The conspiracy guys can be easily shut up with a few photographs from Ineos/Froome. If they don't release anything, these rumours will remain.

So, Dan Martin witnessing the accident and Froome's photo in the hospital bed is not sufficient?

Allright.
 
Photo not showing anything really, and all the witnesses are cyclists. Why don't they silence the conspiracy guys once and for all by just showing something? It's not like we cycling fans are squeamish, we're used to this stuff. After all the horror stories, I also found the state of Froome remarkable, and the interviews quite strange. But if this was fake, I don't really understand the motive though. Forgoing a 5th TdF win is not something you'd easily do. Still, waiting for some photos of Froome's injuries.
 
Re:

Swingtop said:
Photo not showing anything really, and all the witnesses are cyclists. Why don't they silence the conspiracy guys once and for all by just showing something? It's not like we cycling fans are squeamish, we're used to this stuff. After all the horror stories, I also found the state of Froome remarkable, and the interviews quite strange. But if this was fake, I don't really understand the motive though. Forgoing a 5th TdF win is not something you'd easily do. Still, waiting for some photos of Froome's injuries.

State of the world we live in.

You answered your own query. What's the motive? Months of build up..
 
Re:

Swingtop said:
Have to agree that there is little real evidence of the official story. Froome crashed in a town, was treated there for hours, breaks anything and everything, and we have nothing to show for it. No bystander photographs, even Poels "didn't want to look", he even didnt go back to help his teammate, which I found very strange myself. The conspiracy guys can be easily shut up with a few photographs from Ineos/Froome. If they don't release anything, these rumours will remain.
Why the hell would you want to see picture of froomes broken body?


So is dan Martin and all the French doctors now on team Ineos payroll?
 
Re:

Swingtop said:
Photo not showing anything really, and all the witnesses are cyclists. Why don't they silence the conspiracy guys once and for all by just showing something? It's not like we cycling fans are squeamish, we're used to this stuff. After all the horror stories, I also found the state of Froome remarkable, and the interviews quite strange. But if this was fake, I don't really understand the motive though. Forgoing a 5th TdF win is not something you'd easily do. Still, waiting for some photos of Froome's injuries.
You won’t be getting any photos....it has nothing to do with you
 

TRENDING THREADS