The Clinic is inherently anti-Sky / anti-Froome

[del1962]

This is called being 'owned'...........for those not au fait with some of the finer meanings of the English language

No, not owned, I can't do anything about the clinic groupthink, just prooves the point of original op

 

[sittingbison]

This is called being 'owned'...........for those not au fait with some of the finer meanings of the English language

No, not owned, I can't do anything about the clinic groupthink, just prooves the point of original op

Pwned

 

[djpbaltimore]

You mean like

Those are great examples of Contador blowing smoke up people's orifices with little or no rending of garments in the clinic. A great example of the double standard between Contador and Froome. And I feel it has little to do with Contador being old news and more to do with Contador being well liked in the forum.

As for the trains. TS Postal blows the peloton apart in the Vosges (at Sky speeds according to Horner) and it is selfless teammates launching their captain to a glorious victory over his GC rivals. Sky uses the same strategy and it is a boring, mindless tactic, exhibiting the doping culture in the sport. I admittedly exaggerate slightly to make my point, but claiming vociferously that there is not a double standard doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

 

[the sceptic]

Those are great examples of Contador blowing smoke up people's orifices with little or no rending of garments in the clinic. A great example of the double standard between Contador and Froome. And I feel it has little to do with Contador being old news and more to do with Contador being well liked in the forum.

As for the trains. TS Postal blows the peloton apart in the Vosges (at Sky speeds according to Horner) and it is selfless teammates launching their captain to a glorious victory over his GC rivals. Sky uses the same strategy and it is a boring, mindless tactic, exhibiting the doping culture in the sport. I admittedly exaggerate slightly to make my point, but claiming vociferously that there is not a double standard doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Is Froome still clean?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Is Froome still clean?

Of course not. He and Contador are both as dirty as they come.

 

[the sceptic]

Of course not. He and Contador are both as dirty as they come.

Good. I just find it inherently stupid when posters like del1962 complain about double standards when they think sky are clean.

 

[TailWindHome]

Anglo cycling forums take more interest in Anglo riders
Anglo doping forums take more interest in Anglo suspected dopers.

 

[the sceptic]

Anglo cycling forums take more interest in Anglo riders
Anglo doping forums take more interest in Anglo suspected dopers.

Is that why bikeradar ban everyone that think sky are doping.

 

[TailWindHome]

Is that why bikeradar ban everyone that think sky are doping.

Do they?



10chars

 

[buckle]

Anglo cycling forums take more interest in Anglo riders
Anglo doping forums take more interest in Anglo suspected dopers.

It's due to the fact that the Anglos consider themselves morally superior. "Exceptionalism" is their favourite word. The narrative is always WASPs don't dope. Vito Corleone addresses the narrative in the prologue to "The Godfather".

 

[djpbaltimore]

It's not just the doping, it's the insult to my intelligence.

Nothing Sky has said and done has insulted my intelligence more than the 'tainted beef' argument.

Good. I just find it inherently stupid when posters like del1962 complain about double standards when they think sky are clean.

Agreed.

Anglo cycling forums take more interest in Anglo riders
Anglo doping forums take more interest in Anglo suspected dopers.

In general, this argument makes sense. However, I think if we took a straw poll, I would say Nibali and Contador are far more popular than Froome and the Americans would lag much farther behind.

That's all that needs to be said in this topic, really. Guys like Contador and Valverde were discussed for so many years and then caught, there's really nothing to say anymore

I would beg to disagree. My recollection is that the focus of the clinic IMO was mostly Armstrong before the baton was passed to Froome/ Sky. Contador's arbitration was more of a diversion and many posters came to his defense and did not believe he deserved a ban. Valverde was barely a blip on the radar. I think Contador gets more of a pass because of the stylistic reasons mentioned in this thread AND because he took out public enemy #1 in 2009, while Valverde hasn't won enough to warrant the intense scrutiny.

 

[Athame]

It's due to the fact that the Anglos consider themselves morally superior.

I'm glad you've got with the program.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Those are great examples of Contador blowing smoke up people's orifices with little or no rending of garments in the clinic.

I understand that you feel that way, but the reality is those quotes are taken out of context and posted by someone well known for their personal attacks as shown here:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1524623&postcount=125 FWIW, the broader context being, "Whatever is going on at Tinko Saxo, seems to be working."

I'm still waiting for some links to posts where somehow The Clinic is anti-sky anti-Froome. Did you see what I did in that last paragraph? I posted a link to support my claim. If the OP can't be bothered by now the thread should be closed because there's been nothing posted supporting the initial claim.

 

[The Hitch]

This is called being 'owned'...........for those not au fait with some of the finer meanings of the English language

Pwned

Speaking if owned and pwned, bikeradar have absolutely POWNED, sceptic. He can't help but advertise their forum on here at every turn.

Is that why bikeradar ban everyone that think sky are doping.

 

[Escarabajo]

Nothing Sky has said and done has insulted my intelligence more than the 'tainted beef' argument.

...
...

I would beg to disagree. My recollection is that the focus of the clinic IMO was mostly Armstrong before the baton was passed to Froome/ Sky. Contador's arbitration was more of a diversion and many posters came to his defense and did not believe he deserved a ban. Valverde was barely a blip on the radar. I think Contador gets more of a pass because of the stylistic reasons mentioned in this thread AND because he took out public enemy #1 in 2009, while Valverde hasn't won enough to warrant the intense scrutiny.

I disagree. The baton came from Armstrong to Contador to Froome. Valverde somewhere in there. I never saw it coming directly from Armstrong to Froome. You missed those threads.

The meat theory was stupid but he had to pick a story because he tested positive. Froome hasn't.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I understand that you feel that way, but the reality is those quotes are taken out of context and posted by someone well known for their personal attacks as shown here:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1524623&postcount=125 FWIW, the broader context being, "Whatever is going on at Tinko Saxo, seems to be working."

I'm still waiting for some links to posts where somehow The Clinic is anti-sky anti-Froome. Did you see what I did in that last paragraph? I posted a link to support my claim. If the OP can't be bothered by now the thread should be closed because there's been nothing posted supporting the initial claim.

Would the prevalent use of 'bot' count as evidence of a personal attack? Or the disingenuous 'horse steroid' nonsense? I don't feel the clinic is inherently anti-SKY/ Froome. But I don't agree that all riders are treated equally here for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Different but related arguments.

I disagree. The baton came from Armstrong to Contador to Froome. Valverde somewhere in there. I never saw it coming directly from Armstrong to Froome. You missed those threads.

The meat theory was stupid but he had to pick a story because he tested positive. Froome hasn't.

Fair enough on the baton passing. I respect your opinion on that matter.

As a final thought, I do wonder what would happen if Froome got caught and received a shortened suspension for puffing too frequently or something of that nature where he admits no wrongdoing and then came back from suspension to win a grand tour. Does anybody think that posters here would move on from Froome to taking down the next unconfirmed doper in the peloton?

 

[buckle]

I'm glad you've got with the program.

What program? I am not an Anglo. Like Cardinal Mahony, I am a polyglot immigrant.

 

[Scott SoCal]

As a final thought, I do wonder what would happen if Froome got caught and received a shortened suspension for puffing too frequently or something of that nature where he admits no wrongdoing and then came back from suspension to win a grand tour. Does anybody think that posters here would move on from Froome to taking down the next unconfirmed doper in the peloton?

With or without your scenario the clinic will move on from Froome the second another GC contender appears out of nowhere.

Grand tour riders that wake up one day many percentage points better than they have ever been and who become overnight GC contenders/winners will generate tons of speculation for that reason alone. Throw in the "marginal gain" explanation for gains that are anything but marginal and the Froomey talk will be relegated to the back-burner.

 

[ggusta]

IMO, if everyone was riding clean, Contador would probably be the best GC rider in the world.

Froome would be a water carrier.

you can pretty much close the the thread and the clinic on that note as far as i am concerned. i would love to see a clean 'world' because i would love to see my guy waiting for the rest at the top of the mountain for the frauds to arrive.

Sky? They just seem to be Lance 2.0 to me. The latest cynical conventional wisdom always seems to look at the most recent version as not nearly cycical or smug enough. "We're clean, trust us, we're gonna make things better. (And we couldn't get a tan under a broiler which seems to be an added bonus in some parts.) "

they make things worse, andthe fact the this beautiful sport gets relegated to comedians' punchlines infuriates me while sports that are as riddled with drugs and corruption and worse pay no price whatsoever just sends me running for my own brand of PED's.

 

[ggusta]

Of course not. He and Contador are both as dirty as they come.

If you threw out everyone in cycling who wasn't dirty in one way or another, who would be left? Extend that to other sports as well for that matter.

 

[SundayRider]

If Froome didn't look like he had only just learned to ride a bike and Wiggins had had some sort of GT result before the age of 29, I'm sure the clinic wouldn't be quite so anti-Sky/Froome.

 

[red_flanders]

As a final thought, I do wonder what would happen if Froome got caught and received a shortened suspension for puffing too frequently or something of that nature where he admits no wrongdoing and then came back from suspension to win a grand tour. Does anybody think that posters here would move on from Froome to taking down the next unconfirmed doper in the peloton?

No, why would they? Posters here regularly label Contador a doper and some feel they are justified because he turned a positive at some point. Never mind that his positive btw offers not the slightest chance that it was PE.

For the record, of course Contador has doped in his career. His bust for clen is amongst the least useful pieces of information in forming this opinion however.

To be honest I don't even understand the scenario you present RE: Froome. He would never get a suspension for what you suggest, and if he did, it would have no relevance to the notion that he is or isn't a doper.

The evidence of his doping is easy enough to see if you have a brain, just as it is with Contador. You simply can't ride that fast up Alpine and Pyrenean cols clean. No one ever has, and I'm laughing at anyone that thinks Froome is the physiological freak that all of a sudden just became the first Superman to do it, cleans.

 

[TheSpud]

I understand that you feel that way, but the reality is those quotes are taken out of context and posted by someone well known for their personal attacks as shown here:http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1524623&postcount=125 FWIW, the broader context being, "Whatever is going on at Tinko Saxo, seems to be working."

I'm still waiting for some links to posts where somehow The Clinic is anti-sky anti-Froome. Did you see what I did in that last paragraph? I posted a link to support my claim. If the OP can't be bothered by now the thread should be closed because there's been nothing posted supporting the initial claim.

Link to posts in The Clinic going on about Contador crashing and pulling out:


.... er there are none.


Link to posts in The Clinic about Froome when he pulled out:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17756&page=1220

Starts at page 1220

Notable posts : 12261, 12263, 12267, 12272, 12292, 12357

See what I did there? I posted a link and noted specific comments to support my claim.

 

[djpbaltimore]

No, why would they? Posters here regularly label Contador a doper and some feel they are justified because he turned a positive at some point. Never mind that his positive btw offers not the slightest chance that it was PE.

For the record, of course Contador has doped in his career. His bust for clen is amongst the least useful pieces of information in forming this opinion however.

To be honest I don't even understand the scenario you present RE: Froome. He would never get a suspension for what you suggest, and if he did, it would have no relevance to the notion that he is or isn't a doper.

The evidence of his doping is easy enough to see if you have a brain, just as it is with Contador. You simply can't ride that fast up Alpine and Pyrenean cols clean. No one ever has, and I'm laughing at anyone that thinks Froome is the physiological freak that all of a sudden just became the first Superman to do it, cleans.

I agree with much of what you wrote. But previously, I replied to a poster that suggested that Contador and Valverde were largely ignored because they were already caught. I suggested a scenario similar to the Contador case and suggested that if Froome were to go down in a similar way to Contador that the clinic would not move on like they did with Contador. My point is that riders are treated differently here. Admittedly, it is difficult to come up with a scenario exactly similar to Contador because it was almost a one of a kind situation. Feel free to assume it is more like a Valverde 2 year ban and he comes back into the peloton and wins immediately. His stage wins in the Dauphine nearly broke the forum, so I stand by my original opinion that he would still be the focus of the clinic and not be forgotten. I respect your opinion if you disagree. It makes for a better debate when there are diverse opinions.

I feel that you are trying to suggest that I am saying that the majority of people in the clinic think Contador is clean and that is the double standard. Or that I am trying to prove that Froome is clean. I have made neither of those claims. I have stated in this thread that I think both are clearly doping.

 

[TheSpud]

Notable posts : 12261, 12263, 12267, 12272, 12292, 12357

Actually not 12272 but now I cant find the one I wanted to quote