|
Vuelta á Espana 2016
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:28
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Wake me up when all the convicted career dopers like Valverde or Contador are in the senior house.
The non-convicted doper Froome, however, CLEAN!
Well yes, until proven otherwise.
It's a sad state of affairs if riders are considered guilty without ever having failed any test, simply because they succeed. Obviously that's a result of cycling's dirty past.
Any rider should be considered clean until proven otherwise. I mean Sagan dominates races just as much as Froome, possibly more so seeing as Froome only really dominates the Tour, and yet no one accuses him of doping.
Mate, it was said like zillion times, but once again... (takes a deep breath).
Froome was a laughing stock for many years, barely able to finish major races and bam, suddenly begun turning into monster during 2011-2012 timespan.
Sagan dominated many races on different kind of bikes (MTB,cross,road) since childhood and impresses right after turning pro, continuing his development.
Anybody sane can spot the difference...but does it mean Sagan is 100% clean and Froome is 100% dirty? Nope, but you can hardly be surprised when these two are viewed with different optics. 
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
Edited by ringo182 on 30-08-2016 13:30
|
| |
|
|
| Luxemburger |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:29
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1215
Joined: 22-07-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
If he will be still in the ranking 
Kirchen's second account according to Spilak23, 21-07-2016 17:16
|
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
SKY was so confident in Froome that they didn't want to extend his contract before his freak performance in Vuelta 11. Which is understandable, because he had nothing to show for in his career before. No results. How about that.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:35
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Wake me up when all the convicted career dopers like Valverde or Contador are in the senior house.
The non-convicted doper Froome, however, CLEAN!
Well yes, until proven otherwise.
It's a sad state of affairs if riders are considered guilty without ever having failed any test, simply because they succeed. Obviously that's a result of cycling's dirty past.
Any rider should be considered clean until proven otherwise. I mean Sagan dominates races just as much as Froome, possibly more so seeing as Froome only really dominates the Tour, and yet no one accuses him of doping.
Mate, it was said like zillion times, but once again... (takes a deep breath).
Froome was a laughing stock for many years, barely able to finish major races and bam, suddenly begun turning into monster during 2011-2012 timespan.
Sagan dominated many races on different kind of bikes (MTB,cross,road) since childhood and impresses right after turning pro, continuing his development.
Anybody sane can spot the difference...but does it mean Sagan is 100% clean and Froome is 100% dirty? Nope, but you can hardly be surprised when these two are viewed with different optics.
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
He was also proven to have had a parasitic disease which was diagnosed and treated in 2010/11 which also added to his improved performance. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:36
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Wake me up when all the convicted career dopers like Valverde or Contador are in the senior house.
The non-convicted doper Froome, however, CLEAN!
Well yes, until proven otherwise.
It's a sad state of affairs if riders are considered guilty without ever having failed any test, simply because they succeed. Obviously that's a result of cycling's dirty past.
Any rider should be considered clean until proven otherwise. I mean Sagan dominates races just as much as Froome, possibly more so seeing as Froome only really dominates the Tour, and yet no one accuses him of doping.
Mate, it was said like zillion times, but once again... (takes a deep breath).
Froome was a laughing stock for many years, barely able to finish major races and bam, suddenly begun turning into monster during 2011-2012 timespan.
Sagan dominated many races on different kind of bikes (MTB,cross,road) since childhood and impresses right after turning pro, continuing his development.
Anybody sane can spot the difference...but does it mean Sagan is 100% clean and Froome is 100% dirty? Nope, but you can hardly be surprised when these two are viewed with different optics.
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
Sorry, butthis sounds like very fanboy lookout on what happened.
He actually did nothing at all in 2010 and suddenly they have finally tought him to ride a bike in peloton prior to 2011 Vuelta? And they were so confident in him that he was not contracted before that Vuelta? 
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:37
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Oh no, billharzia excuse is here, i was expecting that. Whole world spins in circles
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:37
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Wake me up when all the convicted career dopers like Valverde or Contador are in the senior house.
The non-convicted doper Froome, however, CLEAN!
Well yes, until proven otherwise.
It's a sad state of affairs if riders are considered guilty without ever having failed any test, simply because they succeed. Obviously that's a result of cycling's dirty past.
Any rider should be considered clean until proven otherwise. I mean Sagan dominates races just as much as Froome, possibly more so seeing as Froome only really dominates the Tour, and yet no one accuses him of doping.
Mate, it was said like zillion times, but once again... (takes a deep breath).
Froome was a laughing stock for many years, barely able to finish major races and bam, suddenly begun turning into monster during 2011-2012 timespan.
Sagan dominated many races on different kind of bikes (MTB,cross,road) since childhood and impresses right after turning pro, continuing his development.
Anybody sane can spot the difference...but does it mean Sagan is 100% clean and Froome is 100% dirty? Nope, but you can hardly be surprised when these two are viewed with different optics.
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
LOL |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 07:25
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:41
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
He didn't build slowly towards the his Vuelta performance in 2011 which kicked it all off.
It was totally out-of-the-blue. Much more than other ridiculous performances such as Cobo's or Horner's in the same race. It can't even be compared. |
| |
|
|
| Selwink |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:43
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8856
Joined: 17-05-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
I have this one bookmarked for cases like these 
https://pcmdaily.c...ost_885780
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:43
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Wake me up when all the convicted career dopers like Valverde or Contador are in the senior house.
The non-convicted doper Froome, however, CLEAN!
Well yes, until proven otherwise.
It's a sad state of affairs if riders are considered guilty without ever having failed any test, simply because they succeed. Obviously that's a result of cycling's dirty past.
Any rider should be considered clean until proven otherwise. I mean Sagan dominates races just as much as Froome, possibly more so seeing as Froome only really dominates the Tour, and yet no one accuses him of doping.
Mate, it was said like zillion times, but once again... (takes a deep breath).
Froome was a laughing stock for many years, barely able to finish major races and bam, suddenly begun turning into monster during 2011-2012 timespan.
Sagan dominated many races on different kind of bikes (MTB,cross,road) since childhood and impresses right after turning pro, continuing his development.
Anybody sane can spot the difference...but does it mean Sagan is 100% clean and Froome is 100% dirty? Nope, but you can hardly be surprised when these two are viewed with different optics.
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
Sorry, butthis sounds like very fanboy lookout on what happened.
He actually did nothing at all in 2010 and suddenly they have finally tought him to ride a bike in peloton prior to 2011 Vuelta? And they were so confident in him that he was not contracted before that Vuelta?
Not fanboy at all. Someone made a comment about Froome suddenly coming from nowhere. I posted a comment to refute that claim, with evidence.
I don't really see how the contract offer after the Vuelta is relevant. Hw had a good Vuelta so they offered him a new contract. It's professional sport. That's how contracts work. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:52
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
No, it is not how it works - the riders you want to really secure for next year are secured in June-July. Only the scraps need to wait until August-September to been offered a contract.
You said SKY realized he had a potential as GC rider, but if it was true, they would offer him a contract before the Vuelta, not only after that ridicolous out of nowhere Vuelta.
You say again and again you are not a fan of Froome, but you keep defending him at every discussion...
|
| |
|
|
| Thatguyeveryonehates |
Posted on 30-08-2016 13:55
|
Domestique
Posts: 447
Joined: 01-05-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
[/quote]
Namibia? i was going to say something about how you cant get even the country right but youre not getting anything right so why single that out
if what you say is right and he had the power but his problem was "how to really ride in a professional peloton" why was wasnt he winning time trials?
ringo182 wrote:
He was also proven to have had a parasitic disease which was diagnosed and treated in 2010/11 which also added to his improved performance.
that wasnt his first excuse that was his third or fourth after the first few were ridiculed.
if you have bilharzia youre in a hospital bed and cant walk but he was racing grand tours? you believe that?
now he says he will always have bilharzia and continues to get treatment.
but he also says he has asthma. you cant have both that is why bilharzia research is focused on weaponizing it as a cure for asthma.
ringo182 wrote:
Not fanboy at all. Someone made a comment about Froome suddenly coming from nowhere. I posted a comment to refute that claim, with evidence.
I don't really see how the contract offer after the Vuelta is relevant. Hw had a good Vuelta so they offered him a new contract. It's professional sport. That's how contracts work.
here is why its relevant
we are talking about a guy who admits he had no problem with cutting corners breaking into a national cycling officials email account to commit identity theft to get himself onto a World Championships startlist and getting thrown out of a race for taking a ride hanging on to a motorbike.
his contract was up he was about to be out the door. he was so out the door he only went to that Vuelta because Nordhaug got sick and was told by team management that he wouldnt be going because team management wanted to take someone who would actually have a future in the sport.
Among the atmosphere of rampant cheating that is professional sport do we really think he would have changed from the guy who commits identity theft and cheats with a motorbike to become one of the most morally upstanding members of the peloton?
When a guy like that who is about to have his career ended by having no contract offers at that moment of having nothing to lose suddenly transforms into a superstar something is wrong. |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:09
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
No, it is not how it works - the riders you want to really secure for next year are secured in June-July. Only the scraps need to wait until August-September to been offered a contract.
You said SKY realized he had a potential as GC rider, but if it was true, they would offer him a contract before the Vuelta, not only after that ridicolous out of nowhere Vuelta.
You say again and again you are not a fan of Froome, but you keep defending him at every discussion...
I defend him because he is constantly the target of unfounded accusations. I've often defended other riders who have had similar accusations levelled at them. Admittedly one was Armstrong however I hope history won't repeat itself 
I simply think you shouldn't accuse riders of cheating with no basis. Why watch a sport in which you believe everyone is cheating?
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:17
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media.
I didn't follow this particular discussion, but I would have to say you are very biased towards British cyclists. I remember our discussion where you kept insisting Armitstead had done nothing wrong, I think earlier today I saw you call Cavendish the best sprinter of all time and if you're insisting Froome is clean as well, well..
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:19
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Thatguyeveryonehates wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
Froome was a laughing stock because he came from Namibia and so had terrible bike handling skills. He had the physical aspects but no idea of how to actually race. He was constantly crashing in his early career because he had no idea of how to really ride in a professional peloton. He rode for MTN and Barloworld who I assume didn't have any great training programme.
Sky saw he had the capacity to be a GC rider, given the correct training programme, and slowly built him up to where he is today. He signed for Sky in 2010. In 2011 he got a handful of top 15 finishes in races such as Castilla y Lyon, Romandie and Suisse. In 2012 he helped Wiggo win the Tour and then in 2013 took over as team leader.
I wouldn't say he went bang from out of nowhere. He slowly built up over a few years before becoming what he is today.
ringo182 wrote:
Not fanboy at all. Someone made a comment about Froome suddenly coming from nowhere. I posted a comment to refute that claim, with evidence.
I don't really see how the contract offer after the Vuelta is relevant. Hw had a good Vuelta so they offered him a new contract. It's professional sport. That's how contracts work.
here is why its relevant
we are talking about a guy who admits he had no problem with cutting corners breaking into a national cycling officials email account to commit identity theft to get himself onto a World Championships startlist and getting thrown out of a race for taking a ride hanging on to a motorbike.
his contract was up he was about to be out the door. he was so out the door he only went to that Vuelta because Nordhaug got sick and was told by team management that he wouldnt be going because team management wanted to take someone who would actually have a future in the sport.
[/quote]
I don't know where I got Namibia from . I guess that proves I'm no fanboy seeing as I don't even remember where he is from.
So now he's a cyber hacker. I must admit that's one I haven't heard before
Lot's of riders hang on to motorbikes. It is cheating but to say he is obviously a doper because he hung onto a motorbike is a bit of a jump.
So you have access to the Team Sky rider schedules and you have evidence of him being told he wouldn't be going because "team management wanted to take someone who would actually have a future in the sport". Or is that just hearsay from the media.
Everything you have said is purely speculation. This is my point in all of these kinds of conversations. You can add up 1+1 and make 77 all day long. But the fact is there is no definitive evidence to date. Everything else is purely gossip and rumour, most of which is made up by journalists looking to make stories and sell papers/magazines.
He could well be found guilty in the future. But to date he is innocent of doping, no matter how many computers he supposedly hacks into. |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:22
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media.
I didn't follow this particular discussion, but I would have to say you are very biased towards British cyclists. I remember our discussion where you kept insisting Armitstead had done nothing wrong, I think earlier today I saw you call Cavendish the best sprinter of all time and if you're insisting Froome is clean as well, well..
Armistead had done nothing wrong. Her ban was overturned as the doping tester had failed to follow the correct procedures leading to one of her missed tests.
Cavendish is the greatest sprinter of all time, although that was more a joke to wind up Riis who thinks sprinters don't deserve to be classed as cyclists.
I'm not insisting Froome is clean. I saying there is no evidence he is dirty. |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:24
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media.
I didn't follow this particular discussion, but I would have to say you are very biased towards British cyclists. I remember our discussion where you kept insisting Armitstead had done nothing wrong, I think earlier today I saw you call Cavendish the best sprinter of all time and if you're insisting Froome is clean as well, well..
Indeed, goes without saying he is biased towards British riders. Nothing wrong with that per se, but actually believing and defending Sky/Froome and their bullshit stories is very questionable. |
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:30
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3472
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media.
I didn't follow this particular discussion, but I would have to say you are very biased towards British cyclists. I remember our discussion where you kept insisting Armitstead had done nothing wrong, I think earlier today I saw you call Cavendish the best sprinter of all time and if you're insisting Froome is clean as well, well..
Indeed, goes without saying he is biased towards British riders. Nothing wrong with that per se, but actually believing and defending Sky/Froome and their bullshit stories is very questionable.
If you read my comments I never start a conversation about British cyclists. I simply defend them when someone else is making an accusation with no evidence.
If there is evidence I will hold my hands up and say fair enough. But until then I will continue to speak up. Especially as I don't see any riders/teams from any other country being accused half as much as Froome/Sky despite other teams having proven doping cases in the past. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:30
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
ringo182 wrote:
Ollfardh wrote:
ringo182 wrote:
I'm British and so have an obvious interest in British athletes. I wouldn't say I support any particular rider however I do have more access to the British riders through the British media.
I didn't follow this particular discussion, but I would have to say you are very biased towards British cyclists. I remember our discussion where you kept insisting Armitstead had done nothing wrong, I think earlier today I saw you call Cavendish the best sprinter of all time and if you're insisting Froome is clean as well, well..
Armistead had done nothing wrong. Her ban was overturned as the doping tester had failed to follow the correct procedures leading to one of her missed tests.
Cavendish is the greatest sprinter of all time, although that was more a joke to wind up Riis who thinks sprinters don't deserve to be classed as cyclists.
I'm not insisting Froome is clean. I saying there is no evidence he is dirty.
Though you just know Michelle likes it dirty  |
| |
|
|
| the_hoyle |
Posted on 30-08-2016 14:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7651
Joined: 28-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
.: Manager of :.
.: My Awards :.
 |
| |
|
