Sky/Froome Talk Only (No Way Sky Are Cleans?)

[spalco]

Which is also why it's very tiring to have to read the same tired justifications, many of which were debunked months ago or based on various interviews which contradict each other as the story takes shape, and very tiring to have to reiterate your position on the various issues (eg bilharzia) every single race the biohazard enters.

Yeah, I understand, and I'm not criticising you for that.

It's just, that all material people have against Sky and against Froome in particular is still only conjecture, even after years of more or less absurd performances. Even with USPS there was a lot more concrete stuff, than one dodgy doctor working for the team for a year or so.

Obviously that doesn't prove the suspicions aren't true, and the times are different so maybe Sky deliberately runs a tighter ship, but still - to convince "the masses" you'll need more than that. You (general "you", not you personally) can whinge about the press protecting Sky as much as you want, but can you really blame them for not printing stories that have virtually no evidentiary basis?
Basically this thread, as well as the other Sky thread amount to "I've been following cycling for X years, and every time I've seen something like that it turned out to be cheating", but if you're a halfway responsible journalist, you really do need to do better.

 

[airstream]

Oh no, you can't weazle out of this one. You know fully well nobody is defending those guys. Again, the lie is exposed.


Sorry for you, your posts are here for all to see, your desperate spin is pointless. You claim that anyone is defending those riders while the irrefutable truth is that nobody is defending them.

The only extraordinary defense there is is of Sky.

How is that for a cold hard fact Airstream?

I don't defend Sky. I just don't understand such an avalanche of panic and idnignation. Actually, I try to express only 3 thoughts.

A) Doping is sport is ineradicable because too much of political and financial force is at stake;
B) More sophisticated doping was very likely not a small part of success of all cycling dominators during the last 30 years at least;
C) High level riders have equal rights to win and looking them into account through a prism of subjective talent is folly. Froome is such a legitimate winner like Contador, Evans, Nibali, Armstrong, Ullrich, etc.

In all cases I get a strong dissent.

 

[ebandit]

tosh

Underrating Froome? The guy couldn't climb in a straight line and now he's a world beater? Whatever.

how many times must i read this tosh.................froome rode well and finished his 1st tour

zig zagging up a hill is NOT a sign of zero talent........but super steep hill / over gearing...............was sagan not spotted zig zagging up a hill recently in tirreno-a?

Mark L

 

[Franklin]

Yeah, I understand, and I'm not criticising you for that.

It's just, that all material people have against Sky and against Froome in particular is still only conjecture, even after years of more or less absurd performances. Even with USPS there was a lot more concrete stuff, than one dodgy doctor working for the team for a year or so.

Obviously that doesn't prove the suspicions aren't true, and the times are different so maybe Sky deliberately runs a tighter ship, but still - to convince "the masses" you'll need more than that. You (general "you", not you personally) can whinge about the press protecting Sky as much as you want, but can you really blame them for not printing stories that have virtually no evidentiary basis?
Basically this thread, as well as the other Sky thread amount to "I've been following cycling for X years, and every time I've seen something like that it turned out to be cheating", but if you're a halfway responsible journalist, you really do need to do better.

If every TdF winner for the last twenty years has been shown a doper, why is it responsible to assume number 21 is clean?

 

[thehog]

how many times must i read this tosh.................froome rode well and finished his 1st tour

zig zagging up a hill is NOT a sign of zero talent........but super steep hill / over gearing...............was sagan not spotted zig zagging up a hill recently in tirreno-a?

Mark L

Zig zagging is a sign of a future grand tour champion

 

[spalco]

If every TdF winner for the last twenty years has been shown a doper, why is it responsible to assume number 21 is clean?

Because you can't or shouldn't accuse people of transgressions without proof.

I mean you can, because it's just opinion on a message board, but if you're a sports writer for an actual news outlet, you'd open yourself up to all sorts of hurt.

And btw. 4 out of the last 5 Tour winners have never been officially implicated in doping.

 

[Franklin]

Because you can't or shouldn't accuse people of transgressions without proof.

This is not a court of law. Nor is a journalist a judge. A journalist is free to interpret facts and evidence. A journalist can post contrarian views.

And to drive this one home with a huge sledgehammer: There is no definite proof, but a mountain of circumstantial evidence around those last 5 winners. And the problem is that this evidence is indisputable.

I mean you can, because it's just opinion on a message board, but if you're a sports writer for an actual news outlet, you'd open yourself up to all sorts of hurt.

Nonsense. You can post the facts without any fear.

And btw. 4 out of the last 5 Tour winners have never been officially implicated in doping.

Up till 2012 lance was never implicated in doping. And if we look at the list of last four tour winners there are very definite links to doping beyond positive tests.

1. Sastre: His team allegiance is very murky. It's not without reason Wiggins revealed his peers don't think he was clean.
2. Schleck: Team Allegiance, circumstances about his brother.
3. Evans: rode for Telekom, he rides for BMC, has Rominger as a manager.
4. Wiggins: Leinders, his DS is buddies with Mr. Motoman, the team manager keeps on lieing about anything doperelated;

These facts are indisputable. There is simply no reason to suggest that a journalist would be in hot water pointing this out.

 

[Pentacycle]

Which is also why it's very tiring to have to read the same tired justifications, many of which were debunked months ago or based on various interviews which contradict each other as the story takes shape, and very tiring to have to reiterate your position on the various issues (eg bilharzia) every single race the biohazard enters.

This discussion has never been a real one in the first place. There are still three sides on this; 1: The stubborn deniers(who deny Froome has any kind of talent, Froome's just a super responder), 2: The outright Froome believers(he's clean and he has always been talented like that, he was just ill and he wasted lots of energy on the bike) and 3: the Pragmatists(the most popular group, who combine both 1 and 2 to a varied extent)

The sides 1 and 2 won't ever be able to agree, that's impossible. But they're only small. The only valid discussion takes place inside of group 3, because they're not a real unity. They are divided into sub-groups by their view on what proportion of Froome's performances nowadays can be explained by dope and to what degree his talent can explain his results.

But even there, only small concessions are made. The same arguments, that are being recycled for the umpteenth time, are tiring everyone out. Lack of new input kills the thread. The only ways out are:

> Froome gets a wake up call from the UCI, his watts plummit
> Froome gets caught(least plausible option)
> Sky openly post the mysterious Aigle numbers, on which Froome's talent is based
> Sky post all numbers they have, including 'the graph', for everyone to see
> Froome grows stronger everyday, he starts feeding on his opponents, gets picked up to voyage to his next host planet

 

[Libertine Seguros]

how many times must i read this tosh.................froome rode well and finished his 1st tour

zig zagging up a hill is NOT a sign of zero talent........but super steep hill / over gearing...............was sagan not spotted zig zagging up a hill recently in tirreno-a?

Mark L

If Sagan waltzes away from the best climbers in the world like Froome has been doing, you bet the Clinic will self-combust. And Sagan's been showing the talent to be a world-beater since his very first pro race.

And most of those best climbers in the world are guys who have been or are doping. And Froome's waltzing away from them, not just on occasion but with regularity.

 

[spalco]

Well, I'm not going to apologise for or retract my opinion that journalists shouldn't make such arguments from anecdotes accusing people of doping without proof.

They can write editorials all they like, but not in the actual news sections.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1. Sastre: His team allegiance is very murky. It's not without reason Wiggins revealed his peers don't think he was clean.
2. Schleck: Team Allegiance, circumstances about his brother.
3. Evans: rode for Telekom, he rides for BMC, has Rominger as a manager.
4. Wiggins: Leinders, his DS is buddies with Mr. Motoman, the team manager keeps on lieing about anything doperelated;

These facts are indisputable. There is simply no reason to suggest that a journalist would be in hot water pointing this out.

Wiggins didn't reveal Sastre's peers don't think he was clean, so much as he revealed he himself didn't believe Sastre was clean. Of course, that comment was more of a dig at Contador than anything untoward, he may just have overlooked Sastre or it might have been an accusation. It's hard to tell. The team allegiance side of things stands though.

Evans doesn't have Rominger as his manager anymore, though he did. He also did tests for Ferrari, but that association went no further.

Schleck's super-peaking and Wiggins' volte-face on doping talk and flip-flopping on Armstrong are also facts, albeit not ones that directly indicate anything.

 

[armchairclimber]

Yeah, I understand, and I'm not criticising you for that.

It's just, that all material people have against Sky and against Froome in particular is still only conjecture, even after years of more or less absurd performances. Even with USPS there was a lot more concrete stuff, than one dodgy doctor working for the team for a year or so.

Obviously that doesn't prove the suspicions aren't true, and the times are different so maybe Sky deliberately runs a tighter ship, but still - to convince "the masses" you'll need more than that. You (general "you", not you personally) can whinge about the press protecting Sky as much as you want, but can you really blame them for not printing stories that have virtually no evidentiary basis?
Basically this thread, as well as the other Sky thread amount to "I've been following cycling for X years, and every time I've seen something like that it turned out to be cheating", but if you're a halfway responsible journalist, you really do need to do better.

This.

Froome has, at least, been pretty consistent since Vuelta 2011.
He still has to prove himself though. He may turn out to be an invincible force but he is not there yet. I'm not even convinced that he's the best rider in SKY.

 

[thehog]

This.

Froome has, at least, been pretty consistent since Vuelta 2011.
He still has to prove himself though. He may turn out to be an invincible force but he is not there yet. I'm not even convinced that he's the best rider in SKY.

Consistent?

He was 10 minutes off in each stage at Romandie last year.

But managed to fine his super peaking Shleck like form by the Tour.

This year he's just alien like. An awkward alien.

 

[Franklin]

Well, I'm not going to apologise for or retract my opinion that journalists shouldn't make such arguments from anecdotes accusing people of doping without proof.

They can write editorials all they like, but not in the actual news sections.

You realize that you are putting down a huge falsehood here? These are not anecdotes, but solid facts. They are not up for discussion! Betsy Andreu was an anecdote, but the allegiances here are quite simple a part of reality.

Your opinion that a journo should not point out facts is hilarious... and frankly quite scary. If indeed the majority of people here agrees with you I truly and deeply fear for the quality of free press.

What you want is a bunch of yes men hiding the inconvenient truth. I'll pass. that's not journalism, that's sycophancy.

Wiggins didn't reveal Sastre's peers don't think he was clean, so much as he revealed he himself didn't believe Sastre was clean.

of course this all about interpretation, but there really was hardly anyone voicing disagreement besides the Spanish riders, who made more of a point of the blanket accusation than on Sastre's supposed innocence. Of course, Wiggins is a loose gun, but I think (opinion, not fact) that indeed Wiggo shows that no peer thought Sastre was clean.

 

[spalco]

You realize that you are putting down a huge falsehood here? These are not anecdotes, but solid facts. They are not up for discussion! Betsy Andreu was an anecdote, but the allegiances here are quite simple a part of reality.

Your opinion that a journo should not point out facts is hilarious... and frankly quite scary. If indeed the majority of people here agrees with you I truly and deeply fear for the quality of free press.

What you want is a bunch of yes men hiding the inconvenient truth. I'll pass. that's not journalism, that's sycophancy.

What is a fact is, that neither Sastre, nor Evans, nor Andy Schleck, nor Wiggins or Froome for that matter have so far been caught doing anything illegal, either by criminal or sporting rules standards.

A newspaper that would print stories calling people criminals who've never been convicted or even legally accused of having done anything wrong, is not one that I would read or respect.

Everyone knows pro cycling is horribly dirty, but if I'm a journalist and tasked with writing about a race, I would either do that objectively or not write anything.

 

[webvan]

Right, you can't go around accusing people of being dopers with no proof, it's like accusing someone of being a crook when he hasn't been convicted, it's got a simple name : defamation and yes, that exposes you to a lot of hurt.

It's different than discussing known facts of course (Wiggo denying he ever raced with Armstrong is the most puzzling one to me...) and then saying these cast some doubts, the problem here is that you have the CAT #1 zealots who have zero doubt that Sky and Froome are dopers, go crazy when they win a race and ignore any poor performance, Froome at T-A, Wiggo at Cata, Porte yesterday, etc...it's ridiculous.

 

[armchairclimber]

A cycling journalist that reads the clinic said to me "It would be great if any of the stuff posted in there was reliable...but it isn't." He found it frustrating.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

actually Froome is not a surprise. Came second to a very high calibre Chinese chrono rider MA Haijun in the B worlds in about 2005 or 06. Rode two very good chronos in the 2008 Tour, or might have been 2009. Was the final Barlo tour.

You do realize how ridiculous this is?

Either you are trolling or you are bending results in an incredible way.

I have some other results for you:
Commonwealth Games (Melbourne) I.T.T. (40 km) 21/03/2006
1. O'NEILL Nathan HNM 48'37"
[Natan who???]
17. FROOME Chris - 05'21"

World Championships U23 (Salzburg) I.T.T. (39.5 km) 20/09/2006
1. CORNU Dominique BLV 49'28"
5. BOASSON HAGEN Edvald TMB 01'13"
8. SPILAK Simon ADR 01'27"
23. STANNARD Ian VVE 02'09"
25. URAN URAN Rigoberto TEN 02'22"
36. FROOME Chris - 03'32"

World Championships U23 (Stuttgart) I.T.T. (38.1 km) 26/09/2007
1. BOOM Lars RB3 48'57"
6. BOASSON HAGEN Edvald TMB 01'14"
26. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria SLB 02'37"
36. STANNARD Ian TMO 03'08"
38. VAN GARDEREN Tejay - 03'24" [turned 19 the month before!]
41. FROOME Chris KON 03'31"
42. JANSE VAN RENSBURG Jacques 03'38

Liège - Bastogne - Liège Espoirs (183.4 km) 21/04/2007
1. BOLE Grega SAK 4h48'00"
13. BOOM Lars RB3 58" 3
14. KONOVALOVAS Ignatas - 01'00"
16. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria SLB 01'04"
23. VAN GARDEREN Tejay - 01'04" [18 years old]
28. FROOME Chris KON 01'04"


GP Tell, General classficiation 26/08/2007
1. SMUKULIS Gatis - 14h13'53"
10. FROOME Chris KON 03'01"

Giro delle Regioni, General classification 1/05/2007
1. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria SLB 19h38'33"
20. FROOME Chris KON 01'25"

Volta ao Algarve, General classification 24/02/2008
1. DEVOLDER Stijn QST 19h42'59"
16. VAN GARDEREN Tejay RB3 02'01"
37. COSTA Rui Alberto Faria SLB 03'09"
104. FROOME Chris BAR 22'20"

Volta ao Distrito de Santarem, Stage 3 : Almeirim - Almeirim I.T.T. (21.5 km) 15/03/2008
4. FROOME Chris BAR 25"
5. TAARAMÄE Rein COF 29"
6. GUERRA GARCIA Hector LSE 31"

Amstel Gold Race (257.4 km) 20/04/2008
138. FROOME Chris BAR 19'12"

Flèche Wallonne (199.5 km) 23/04/2008
114. FROOME Chris BAR 09'56"

Liège - Bastogne - Liège (261 km) 27/04/2008
84. FROOME Chris BAR 08'11"

Vuelta a Asturias, Stage 2b : Nueva - Llanes I.T.T. (17 km)
1. SANCHEZ GONZALEZ Samuel EUS 19'51"
2. KUNITSKI Andrei ASA 07"
3. ROVNY Ivan TCS 22"
4. VICIOSO ARCOS Angel POV 25"
5. FROOME Chris BAR 26"
6. SAMOILAU Branislau ASA 27"
7. CONTRINI Daniele TCS 27"
8. DUMA Vladimir FLM 29"

Herald Sun Tour, Stage 5 : TarraWarra Estate I.T.T. (16.2 km)
1. O'GRADY Stuart CSC 24'16"
8. YATES Jeremy - 26"
9. IMPEY Daryl BAR 39"
10. FROOME Chris BAR 39"
11. BOBRIDGE Jack SAI 40" [turned 19 a month before]

Lets do a TT head to head:
Lars Boom versus Froome
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/h2h.asp

Bo Hagen versus Froome
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/h2h.asp

Malori versus Froome
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/h2h.asp

To sum up Froome's early years:
some nice results

Carreerpath of a man who is going to be able to destroy the peloton? Not in my book. But, perhaps you have seen these kinda riders before, doing it clean of course, like Bernhard Kohl, Stefan Schumacher?

 

[Franklin]

Right, you can't go around accusing people of being dopers with no proof, it's like accusing someone of being a crook when he hasn't been convicted, it's got a simple name : defamation and yes, that exposes you to a lot of hurt.

My god, do you guys give up hopes on free press just on those idiotic and false grounds????

If I do dealings with a maffia lord a newspaper can report on that fact!

I'm shocked that you guys have no clue what a journalist is allowed to do.

There is absolutely nothing legally stopping a journalist posting the facts about Sastre, Sky, Evans, Wiggins, Schleck, Contador. That you guys think there is is really, really scary.

 

[Franklin]

What is a fact is, that neither Sastre, nor Evans, nor Andy Schleck, nor Wiggins or Froome for that matter have so far been caught doing anything illegal, either by criminal or sporting rules standards.

And this those other facts magically disappeared?

A newspaper that would print stories calling people criminals who've never been convicted or even legally accused of having done anything wrong, is not one that I would read or respect.

Ah yes, a strawman, how amusing.

Point where I say that there must be accusations? Oh dang, I didn't huh? I just said that the facts should be posted.

God I really, truly hate strawmen like these. They are so obvious that it's just annoying.

Everyone knows pro cycling is horribly dirty, but if I'm a journalist and tasked with writing about a race, I would either do that objectively or not write anything.

Like using statistics and facts? Or is that to objective for you?

Spalco, your view of how a journalist should act are truly scary. You dismiss fact seeking and honest reporting. You only want to read about it if there is a court decision. Lance Armstrong really agrees from the debt of his heart.

 

[spalco]

And this those other facts magically disappeared?



Ah yes, a strawman, how amusing.

Point where I say that there must be accusations? Oh dang, I didn't huh? I just said that the facts should be posted.

God I really, truly hate strawmen like these. They are so obvious that it's just annoying.



Like using statistics and facts? Or is that to objective for you?

Spalco, your view of how a journalist should act are truly scary. You dismiss fact seeking and honest reporting. You only want to read about it if there is a court decision. Lance Armstrong really agrees from the debt of his heart.

No, you're the one constructing strawmen.

There was a much darker cloud around Armstrong, than there is around Sky, much more concrete evidence.

There's been virtually nothing about Sky since 2010 except for conclusions drawn from their performances. Even the Leinders thing didn't turn up much.
The news report news. What is new? What are they supposed to do exactly?

 

[ljpoyz]

Whilst I respect your opinion, I don't think I agree with that. He'd placed second twice in le tour by then and won the then UCI world tour. Plus, he allegedly made his Ferrari engine comment earlier than that. I don't see a huge improvement spike in him throughout his career.

agree with these points.

circa mendrisio imo, he pulled the gun. before, it was just hormone replenishment, recovery doping that is not doping in the pelotons eyes.

he got a bit more real (grammar) after, pulled the trigger in a crepescular season of his career,

 

[Franklin]

No, you're the one constructing strawmen.

Actually I'm not. You can disagree with me, but there is no strawman to see here. I advice you to look up what a strawman is.

There was a much darker cloud around Armstrong, than there is around Sky, much more concrete evidence.

which concrete evidence are you talking about?

There's been virtually nothing about Sky since 2010 except for conclusions drawn from their performances. Even the Leinders thing didn't turn up much.
The news report news. What is new? What are they supposed to do exactly?

I don't know? Perhaps we should start with some facts that never made the newspaper?

1. Point out that Leinders was employed for very odd reasons?
2. Point out that mr yates was best buddies with Motoman (that was all forum, not newspaper)?
3. Point out that the exodus at Sky implies that indeed there was a rotten core at Sky during 2011?
4. That Dave Brailsford is a serial liar who is boldly lieing about the days of employment of Leinders (verifiable)?

There is absolutely nothing that would be untrue and thus there is absolutely nothing to fear legally.

 

[webvan]

And that's enough to accuse Sky of being "100% Dopers" and Chris Froome in particular, and I quote, of

Froome has less natural talent than Riis had.

He's the most ridiculous product of doping in cycling's history.

Below zero to more than a 'hero'.

Yeah, right...anyone with a brain knows that it wouldn't fly in a paper or a book, 100% slander, libel, defamatory, character assassination, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Franklin]

And that's enough to accuse Sky of being "100% Dopers" and Chris Froome in particular, and I quote, of


Yeah, right...anyone with a brain knows that it wouldn't fly in a paper or a book, 100% slander, libel, defamatory, character assassination, whatever you want to call it.

I would love it if you point out where I claim that Sky is 100% doping (or Froome). If you can't claim it we can chalk this one up as just another torched strawman.