The Climb (Froome's first autobiography)

[GJB123]

Be as mad as you like, Flo. I couldn't give a toss. But the point stands, like it or not.

Not so funny now, are you, Flo?

Mental illness springs to mind.

 

[martinvickers]

Oh you're right Martin, I was shocked when I first saw that video... 4 ****ing years ago.
QFT

Boo-hoo, Flo. Truth seems to have stung people a lot here. Tough. Have a hankie.

I care rather more about fewer athletes dying, or living their lives in pain, than about your ***ing feelings.

Stay out of the conversation if you like. I don't mind. But start trying to mock something this serious, think you're funny, yeah, I'm gonna let you know what I think.

 

[martinvickers]

There comes a point when there is no difference between the two. Ventoux 2013 was this point.

You sound exactly like the Armstrong, Ullrich and Pantani defenders on boards like this one in the early 2000's.

There were no boards like this one in the early 2000's. And that's a cheap tactic to avoid the point.

 

[martinvickers]

Have I now officially been upgraded from crazy stalker chick to keyboard warrior?

It ain't an upgrade, chile. It's an additional charge on the rap sheet.

 

[red_flanders]

Boo-hoo, Flo. Truth seems to have stung people a lot here. Tough. Have a hankie.

I care rather more about fewer athletes dying, or living their lives in pain, than about your ***ing feelings.

Stay out of the conversation if you like. I don't mind. But start trying to mock something this serious, think you're funny, yeah, I'm gonna let you know what I think.

A few posts back you said:

I appreciate the attempt to actual discuss. It seems to escape others.

Then this bile. Makes it rather difficult to take you seriously in any way.

 

[red_flanders]

There were no boards like this one in the early 2000's. And that's a cheap tactic to avoid the point.

Funny, I spent several years on the Daily Peloton forums discussing these topics in great detail with people from all over the cycling world. I must have imagined that.

I'm evading nothing, but your lack of information and perspective is unfortunate and I'm sure fuels your mis-informed view of the sport.

 

[martinvickers]

A few posts back you said:

Then this bile. Makes it rather difficult to take you seriously in any way.

You want to compare your additions, and say Hitches, which make actual points to discuss, to Flo's and sceptic's, and tell me they are the same?

 

[red_flanders]

You want to compare you're additions, and say Hitches, which make actual points to discuss, to Flo's and sceptics, and tell me they are the same?

I see no difference between the personal attacks and insults coming from you and those coming from others. Do you?

 

[martinvickers]

I see no difference between the personal attacks and insults coming from you and those coming from others. Do you?

I respond appropriately to which ever type of response I get. Civilised gets civilised response. Snotty Troll gets slapped down. Or is it ok for Sceptic to tell me to "Go f*** myself", but not for me to respond?

Simples.

 

[deValtos]

My feeling is that there is some truth in that rooting for dopers enables them to some small degree if it's done publicly.

How do we know who is doping again? We know lack of positives is nearly meaningless, so if we go by that measure we (the proverbial "we", that is) end up rooting for dopers like Indurain, Bugno, Armstrong, Schleck, Froome, Horner, Ullrich and scores more for years and years. No blood on your hands for those cheers? Even when the great majority of fans know they're doping?

So someone wants to say they will not root for anyone convicted. Defensible but meaningless. I watched Horner and Nibali duke it out last year in a great battle on the Angliru. Who to root for? Neither has ever been popped that I knew of at the time. Or was I OK and free from "blood" because neither has been popped, no matter what the reality of whether they actually dope?

Not a black and white world. I have my values, but I'm not so sure of them that I would cry "blood" about others'.

For sure it's not a clean cut decision for many athletes but that doesn't mean you have to think, aww damn may aswell just cheer for everyone.

For all we know the next young top cycling talent is reading this forum right now (cause they like cycling) and it hardly sends a good message when, even in the clinic of all places (!), you read support for convicted dopers. They'll have it in the back of their mind that, hey even these people don't care that much ...

 

[red_flanders]

I respond appropriately to which ever type of response I get. Civilised gets civilised response. Snotty Troll gets slapped down. Or is it ok for Sceptic to tell me to "Go f*** myself", but not for me to respond?

Simples.

"Appropriate" is a matter of opinion. Is it OK? I would think an adult would not need to ask such a question.

Either way your calls for serious discussion are completely undermined by your venom toward others. As would anyone else's were they making such arguments then doing exactly what they complain about.

 

[red_flanders]

For sure it's not a clean cut decision for many athletes but that doesn't mean you have to think, aww damn may aswell just cheer for everyone.

For all we know the next young top cycling talent is reading this forum right now (cause they like cycling) and it hardly sends a good message when, even in the clinic of all places (!), you read support for convicted dopers. They'll have it in the back of their mind that, hey even these people don't care that much ...

And I don't. I simply don't cheer for riders based on whether they've been caught for doping. Since I don't know who is doping, and I realize that the great bulk of GT riders are doping, I have to root based on other criteria or not follow the sport.

Y'all need to find what works for you.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Stay out of the conversation if you like. I don't mind. But start trying to mock something this serious, think you're funny, yeah, I'm gonna let you know what I think.

Oh Martin. I'm mocking Froome's book. You think that book is serious? I hope not.

Anyway, going off topic a bit and leaving the book aside, you are the one who keeps complaining about how "unfair" we all are for supporting Contador and hating on Froome.

I'll start hating Contador whenever he starts casting doubts and ****ing on others and adopts a "holier than thou" attitude and shows himself to be a disgusting hypocrite.

But you want to make this much worse than it actually is. People supporting dopers make them dope. People supporting dopers might contribute to their death. Disgusting.

Cry me a river about fairness and all that. YOU made that entire discussion irrelevant by coming up with some *** analogy and blowing everything out of proportion.

I know one thing, and that is that Contador couldn't give two ****s what some random person on the internet thinks about him. How the hell would my support encourage him to dope and risk his life.

 

[Benotti69]

When was the last time one of them died in their bed? Flo Jo, maybe?

Sprinters are ok cos they dont die in their beds. Some logic!

The amounts of money and attention to medications, pharmaceuticals is far greater in athletics than cycling. Also there is a bigger code of silence in athletics.

If sprinters used EPO i guess they would've had some deaths.

 

[BYOP88]

"Appropriate" is a matter of opinion. Is it OK? I would think an adult would not need to ask such a question.

Either way your calls for serious discussion are completely undermined by your venom toward others. As would anyone else's were they making such arguments then doing exactly what they complain about.

Didn't you know, he is allowed to insult people and everyone has to accept that BUT you're not allowed to insult him. Try and keep up with the forum rules, red.

I assume the "red" in your username is because you have blood on your hands.

 

[Benotti69]

Didn't you know, he is allowed to insult people and everyone has to accept that BUT you're not allowed to insult him. Try and keep up with the forum rules, red.

I assume the "red" in your username is because you have blood on your hands.

It's because he is Irish.....

 

[the sceptic]

Didn't you know, he is allowed to insult people and everyone has to accept that BUT you're not allowed to insult him. Try and keep up with the forum rules, red.

I assume the "red" in your username is because you have blood on your hands.

Says the guy with blood in his avatar..

 

[BYOP88]

It's because he is Irish.....

hahaha!!

Excellent quote usage!

 

[Ripper]

But what is that point, exactly?

Since we're no longer even close to the topic of the thread, and the report function doesn't even work anyway, I may as well jump into the fray on this one.

For all the histrionics, Martin has yet to explain just how it is that these fans in question supposedly have blood on their hands.

Is he referring to the roadside fans who yell and cheer for their favorite doper, thereby emboldening them to push the limits further? If so, he may have a point worth discussing, but I would still take issue with it.

Is he referring to someone who posts something online in support of their favorite doper? If so, he has yet to provide any evidence that such a thing would contribute to doping by said rider.

Is he, as hitch mentioned, referring to the fan who watches the races on TV or computer, in the privacy of their own home, and feels good about seeing his or her favorite doper succeed? Because if so, than Martin has a lot of explaining to do.

Just what is it that these fans do that make them complicit in the doping? Does Martin seriously believer that these riders dope because of encouragement and support from fans?

If so, I would love for Martin to explain the doping that goes on in the U.S. Masters scene.


[Edit]
Actually, I'm not even going to respond further here to this topic. It belongs in its own thread, so I'll wait for a mod to move the entire conversation.

I'll just add ... it's opinion masquerading as fact, specifically the accessory part. I also think it entirely dismisses the complex behaviours associated with how people determine what like or don't like, as well as what contributes to the interest to dope.

 

[Digger]

Why doesn't Martin tell Walsh he has blood on his hands?

 

[gooner]

Oh Martin. I'm mocking Froome's book. You think that book is serious? I hope not.

Anyway, going off topic a bit and leaving the book aside, you are the one who keeps complaining about how "unfair" we all are for supporting Contador and hating on Froome.

I'll start hating Contador whenever he starts casting doubts and ****ing on others and adopts a "holier than thou" attitude and shows himself to be a disgusting hypocrite.

But you want to make this much worse than it actually is. People supporting dopers make them dope. People supporting dopers might contribute to their death. Disgusting.

Cry me a river about fairness and all that. YOU made that entire discussion irrelevant by coming up with some *** analogy and blowing everything out of proportion.

I know one thing, and that is that Contador couldn't give two ****s what some random person on the internet thinks about him. How the hell would my support encourage him to dope and risk his life.

Never mind the doping, only the hypocrisy counts. Where I have I heard that before?

Last year you were on here saying it wasn't fair if Contador was clean that he was getting beat by dopers. Fairness only comes in when the suit fits. No problem pre-ban days though.

You even hoped that he doped in such circumstances.

It has been shown that Contador has played the clean card before.

La Flo, don't want to get into an argument but I have to take up this post.

 

[The Hitch]

When was the last time one of them died in their bed? Flo Jo, maybe?

Are f1 fans responsible for crashes that happen there. Hell are we all have responsible for crashes in cycling?

 

[thehog]

That's really quite interesting. Funny that I never bothered to click on that article based on the headline: Nibali polishes his form in the Dolomites, because based on that, it seemed the headline was the article. I thought, OK, good to know. Next...

Whereas the headline most certainly should have been: Nibali using science to control Froome's attacks. Now that I would've clicked on.

I only bring this up because CN (like most) actively and consciously try to come up with "click-generating" headlines, to the point of being absurd quite often. But they completely missed the boat on this one.


[Edit]
Here's what I remember:

Join the Cyclingnews team
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cyclingnews-online-production-editor-required-north-america

I believe it's a case that the person who writes the article doesn't write the headline. They just email in the words and it's edited and given a byline.

Probably explains the discrepancies.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Never mind the doping, only the hypocrisy counts. Where I have I heard that before?

I am not sure

Last year you were on here saying it wasn't fair if Contador was clean that he was getting beat by dopers. Fairness only comes in when the suit fits. No problem pre-ban days though.

Yeah. I believe they all dope. I don't want Contador to lose simply because he's the only one to play by the rules. Capiche?

You even hoped that he doped in such circumstances.

Indeed.

It has been shown that Contador has played the clean card before.

You are completely right, he has said he's clean in the past. He's also been a massive hypocrite in the past ( for example by calling for life bans). But not to anywhere near the extent that Team Sky and Froome have.

La Flo, don't want to get into an argument but I have to take up this post.

Neither do I, unfortunately it looks like Martin doesn't mind a fight.

I would also like to say that this isn't a thread about Contador.

 

[The Hitch]

When was the last time one of them died in their bed? Flo Jo, maybe?

So what, based on that there is less doping in 100m

Martin, you do realize there are like 10 cyclists if not more for every 100m sprinter.