Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[RownhamHill]

Confirmation bias is a fascinating thing to behold.

 

[The Hitch]

It's not that strange

I started watching the Tour because of Chris Boardman but I couldn't tell you what year it was

Ok.

But that's not what Chris said though is it?

If Chris had said - "i started watching when Basso was racing but I couldn't tell you what year it was". No one would have blinked.

But he didn't.

Chris said he very much could remember. He remembered every detail. How he was in school. He can tell you where the school was and what it was called. How the tv was on and it was only on the TDF because the headmaster was a cycling fan.

And it turns out, it wasn't true.

 

[The Hitch]

Confirmation bias is a fascinating thing to behold.

Unless you have somehting to add this looks like a pathetic attempt at trolling to me.

Froome gets caught lying in an interview, contradicts things he said before and people here are actually linking to the previous interviews and hilighting what he said and showing how it contradicts what he says now.

And your retort is a childish implication that everyone is biased?

 

[keeponrollin]

Unless you have somehting to add this looks like a pathetic attempt at trolling to me.

Just leave it Hitch, that bait isn't even fresh enough to catch crabs...

 

[the sceptic]

Unless you have somehting to add this looks like a pathetic attempt at trolling to me.

Froome gets caught lying in an interview, contradicts things he said before and people here are actually linking to the previous interviews and hilighting what he said and showing how it contradicts what he says now.

And your retort is a childish implication that everyone is biased?

Let me guess.. If Walsh had written this we would all be foaming at the mouth calling for his head. But since it was our beloved Kimmage we celebrate and eat up everything he says since it confirmes our bias that Froome is doping and in fact not very smart or nice.

But if we look deeper we find, what exactly? that we should be on the fence instead?

 

[del1962]

I am sure I will be called a troll for this, but RownhamHill is totally correct, most of what goes on with regard to Froome in the clinic is a form of confirmation bias and hysteria, and I include some of the mods in that

Anyway troll away mad hatters

 

[sniper]

Of course, this interview highlights what a really crap liar he is, so now PK has the scent of blood, so now he can start pulling the threads of some of the other, more significant lies.

though i hope he will, i doubt paul will take this case much further.
he has little to win here, much to loose.
with froome it's not the same as with armstrong, me thinks.
the latter was being such an aggravating a-hole that he left kimmage no other option than to go after him.
i dont think froome is triggering the same kind of resentment within paul as lance was. (though i could be wrong)
Michelle, Brailsford and Wiggins might, though.

 

[the sceptic]

I am sure I will be called a troll for this, but RownhamHill is totally correct, most of what goes on with regard to Froome in the clinic is a form of confirmation bias and hysteria, and I include some of the mods in that

Anyway troll away mad hatters

If you have nothing to back this up with I can only assume you are trolling.

 

[del1962]

If you have nothing to back this up with I can only assume you are trolling.

As I can't remeber seeing one post by you with anything to back it up I will take that as a compliment.

Keep on trolling Sceptic, it is what you do best

 

[gooner]

Can't believe out of that interview people want to pick up on his comments about watching Basso v Armstrong in the Tour.

He has spoken about this on previous occasions. I thought this was known. A piece where Richard Moore interviewed him.

The first Tour Froome watched was in 2004, when he cheered Ivan Basso on against Armstrong. Basso was later punished for doping.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...me-ready-prove-cycling-clean-Tour-France.html

This has nothing got to do with doping when he points out his first memory of the Tour.

 

[del1962]

Can't believe out of that interview people want to pick up on his comments about watching Basso v Armstrong in the Tour.

He has spoken about this on previous occasions. I thought this was known. A piece where Richard Moore interviewed him.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...me-ready-prove-cycling-clean-Tour-France.html

This has nothing got to do with doping when he points out his first memory of the Tour.

Dont you see, he got the year wrong so he is an evil liar, #burnthewitch

 

[the sceptic]

As I can't remeber seeing one post by you with anything to back it up I will take that as a compliment.

Keep on trolling Sceptic, it is what you do best

I take it you didnt have anything to back it up with then.

Quelle surprise.

 

[gooner]

I do like Kimmage dropping Walsh's pathetic attempt for a book into the leading paragraph.

Brilliant!

And I do love Froome getting a serious case of the "I don't recall". Sure this wasn't the SCA deposition?

Question is? Why would they do this? Was it a get back at Walsh? It can't be to demonstrate cleanness? Total madness. The less said the better. This interview is effectively a positive test!

He was interviewed by Walsh yesterday. That was already pointed out.

This is why I stick with the notion that Froome was always a nobody. And this his only way out of that. Walsh also is just as nerdy and geeky as Froome sees similarities in him with himself.

How Froome manages to lead a team and inspire leadership is beyond me.

Today the Dawg well and truly jumped the shark. And Walsh might as well retire from journalism. He's a disgrace.

Walsh should retire, yeah right. If Kimmage wrote the column that Walsh did last week, you and others wouldn't half lap it up.

 

[I Love To Dope]

While most teams are planning race tactics right as the Tour starts, Michelle is jingling her keys for Chris while he eats his first breakfast in over a week.

 

[purcell]

I am sure I will be called a troll for this, but RownhamHill is totally correct, most of what goes on with regard to Froome in the clinic is a form of confirmation bias and hysteria, and I include some of the mods in that

Anyway troll away mad hatters

I am reasonably certain that if I put those very words into a search of just the cyclingnews website they would pop up, unchanged in a Lance Armstrong thread somewhere back in time.

How anyone is able to take Sky, and especially Froome, seriously is completely beyond my ability to understand. We have seen this movie before. The ending has already been written.

 

[thehog]

Can't believe out of that interview people want to pick up on his comments about watching Basso v Armstrong in the Tour.

He has spoken about this on previous occasions. I thought this was known. A piece where Richard Moore interviewed him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...me-ready-prove-cycling-clean-Tour-France.html

This has nothing got to do with doping when he points out his first memory of the Tour.

True.

but.... what you meant was a previous "occasion" not previous "occasions" as in multiple times. Singular not plural. And if so well known I'm sure you would have brought it up before...

Nevertheless, Froome vividly remembers watching in the boarding house at school. So if he wasnt actually watching at school then why mention it? Why not just say "I remember watching Basoo v Armstrong, can't remember the year but..."

Because the key here is not Basso v Armstrong and it's not so much the year either. It's the fact he was 20 in 2004 and couldn't possibly be at school.

On its own, yes, it may be innocuous. But together with all the other inconsistencies and lies it adds up to total fabrication of his backstory.

CF: I was in the boarding house of St John’s College in Johannesburg. Our house master was into cycling and he had put cycling on the common room television and I can vividly remember Armstrong and Basso in the mountains together and watching them dueling.

 

[gooner]

True.

but.... what you meant was previous "occasion" not previous "occasions" as in multiple times. Singular not plural. And if so well known I'm sure you would have brought it up before...

Nevertheless, Froome vividly remembers watching in the boarding house at school. So if he wasnt actually watching at school then why mention it? Why not just say "I remember watching Basoo v Armstrong, can't remember the year but..."

Because the key here is not Basso v Armstrong and it's not so much the year either. It's the fact he was 20 in 2004 and couldn't possibly be at school.

On its own, yes, it may be innocuous. But together with all the other inconsistencies and lies it adds up to total fabrication of his backstory.

Again elsewhere,

A year and a half ago.

Ten years ago, at boarding school in Johannesburg, television images of Armstrong racing Ivan Basso in the mountains were the first Froome saw of the Tour. He instinctively favoured Basso, the underdog, but gave up on professional cyclists as heroes after the Italian was confirmed as another doping cheat.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/25/chris-froome-sky-tour-de-france

 

[mewmewmew13]

There are some good quotes and points being made here...it feels like it is going to get derailed by a schoolyard hair pulling scuffle...

Lets keep going. We in the clinic are always at the forefront of breaking news and deciphering mysteries...
We can do this!

 

[del1962]

True.

but.... what you meant was previous "occasion" not previous "occasions" as in multiple times. Singular not plural. And if so well known I'm sure you would have brought it up before...

Nevertheless, Froome vividly remembers watching in the boarding house at school. So if he wasnt actually watching at school then why mention it? Why not just say "I remember watching Basoo v Armstrong, can't remember the year but..."

Because the key here is not Basso v Armstrong and it's not so much the year either. It's the fact he was 20 in 2004 and couldn't possibly be at school.

On its own, yes, it may be innocuous. But together with all the other inconsistencies and lies it adds up to total fabrication of his backstory.

If he was born in 1985 how could he be 20 in 2004?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

yes, it is odd. Its very odd. When has any active cyclist ever given an interview before with anyone else there (manager, wife, girlfriend, whatever)?

Probably all the time. But they just shut the hell up and let the interviewee respond to the questions.

And more importantly, why was she there?

Manager / handler?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is the biggest problem in the entire interview. A V02max of 80-85 (which refers to V02max/kg, so is unaffected by weight loss--how could an elite rider possibly be unaware of that) just doesn't fit with some of his times, particularly the Madone. You would need a 100% lactate threshold and efficiency through the roof. And the point about the weight loss has already been debunked by his ITT times, which would not be much affected by that.

80 x 70 = 5.6 - 6l/min.

@ 66kg that's 84-90 ml/min/kg.

What efficiency does he need to put out his Madone time power?

 

[thehog]

Again elsewhere,

A year and a half ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/25/chris-froome-sky-tour-de-france

Good work but you're still missing the trick.

The problem remains he wasn't at school for the stage in 2004 Basso v Armstrong.

No matter how many times he says it. It's still not true. It's not possible he as at boarding school and saw the stage.

I know you think you're into something here but it's clinging to a false hope that even after this car crash of an interview that Froome might have some credibility. Kimmage subtly wringed the death out of Dawg in the 3 hours and they didn't even see it happen.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So when it's only Sky on Teide, no tests is okay, if there are other teams no tests is NOT okay

Pretty much "we're clean, but them there dirty riders need testing".

Transparency at last!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

For some reason I keep thinking of this

http://youtu.be/n5P-uZqm0RE

Nice! They just did it in reverse - Froome would say something and be corrected at every step by Michelle.

 

[The Hitch]

Can't believe out of that interview people want to pick up on his comments about watching Basso v Armstrong in the Tour.

He has spoken about this on previous occasions. I thought this was known. A piece where Richard Moore interviewed him.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...me-ready-prove-cycling-clean-Tour-France.html

This has nothing got to do with doping when he points out his first memory of the Tour.

OMG you cannot be serious

1 no one said it has anything to do with doping. You added that yourself in order to try to add some validity to your point when you have none. They said he is lying. Which he is
2 You don't seem to have any idea about what's wrong with the quote. You just say - he pointed out his first memory. Yeah no one would have a problem with that if thats what he did jeez.
What's wrong is he gives a detailed description of watching it in school as a 16 year old. It turns out he was 20 when it happened, so he can't have been in school. Therefore the story he actually gives its bull****. Its made up. You follow?
3 The quote you give from the Daily Mail isn't a Froome quote. its a quote from someone else speaking for Froome.