Hating both is easy. How many times did Contador test clean before being caught when he was almost certainly on something? Same thing will (hopefully) happen to Froome.
The big problem with Froome is that without his obvious doping he actually has only a mediocre amount of talent. Same as Armstrong. Remember how close he was to being let go from the WT. He came from absolutely nowhere to win a GT and suddenly become the world's best rider. At least Contador has always been this good, whether because he was doping from a younger age (riding against other dopers) or because he is just that good. Froome is arrogant off the bike, a negative and completely uninspiring rider on it.
Then there is the whole being on Sky thing, with them completely determined to suck any fun out of stage racing. Plus the team has the temerity to take a huge moral high ground on the doping issue when it is clear that there are serious questions about a lot of their riders' performances.
In other words there's a lot of reasons to hate Froome.
Both are gross dopers. I hate them. But when they are the top guys, and you need to pick sides, people pick Contador. Would you rather cheer for an exciting doper or a boring one?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
I dont really understand why everyone thinks Froome is Definitely a doper? I know it's dubious, and sky are not exactly the best team ever, but even still its not like he's as dominant against other dopers (like armstrong). there isnt any empirical evidence either like operation puerto. all the "evidence" against him is circumstantial at best. I havent heard one ex-sky rider come out and say anything to suggest doping either.
I know that the Sky team are really strong with their train in the mountains, but isnt that just Sky buying the best riders? a bit like HTC in sprints....
the other argument is his massive improvement later in life, but thats not unheard of in sports at all... and he was known to be ill before he got better, so its not like he lied about being ill to cover doping retrospectively.
even with all this, i like Contador more because he is more fun to watch on the bike.
madzdaman wrote:
I dont really understand why everyone thinks Froome is Definitely a doper? I know it's dubious, and sky are not exactly the best team ever, but even still its not like he's as dominant against other dopers (like armstrong). there isnt any empirical evidence either like operation puerto. all the "evidence" against him is circumstantial at best. I havent heard one ex-sky rider come out and say anything to suggest doping either.
If by 'Empirical' you mean "we have blood bags with his name on them" then of course not, but as everyone will tell you we didn't have the same for Armstrong. Now if by 'Empirical' you mean "based in statistics", which is what it actually means, then there is more than you perhaps think. For example as mentioned here Antoine Vayer measured Froome's performances in the 2013 tour as beyond human capability. There are some caveats with using this as "proof" but when consistent trends like this that are seen throughout his career (as well as near-record breaking times on some climbs... including the dark days of the early 00s) serious questions have to be asked: https://sportsscie...lications/
madzdaman wrote:
I know that the Sky team are really strong with their train in the mountains, but isnt that just Sky buying the best riders? a bit like HTC in sprints....
Partially, yes. But they also bought some mediocre-to-good riders who have become freakishly good in the mountains. Kennaugh for instance. Or Porte (and before you raise that Giro top 10 he only got that because he was part of a massive break that stole a huge amount of time). Wiggins provides another superb example of a rider who went from prologue specialist to TdF winner. He had a 4th place in the weak 2009 Tour with a route that was very favourable to him (lots of TT kms, a TTT and he still bled time in the mountains). Then he did nothing and suddenly was turned into a GT winner. So he went from good rider who was a specialist at TTs to all-round top stage racer.
madzdaman wrote:
the other argument is his massive improvement later in life, but thats not unheard of in sports at all... and he was known to be ill before he got better, so its not like he lied about being ill to cover doping retrospectively.
Sure, but the condition he had is supposed to debilitate you for years by all accounts.
Edited by CountArach on 24-02-2015 03:03
I don't hate either rider, I rate them on the same level as most of the peloton as being dirty cheats who can't seem to understand that doping is the wrong thing to do
Agreed. I don't hate them, but I can't say I like them.
And if I have to choose wich one I dislike the less, iT's Contador, at least he's got some Panache.
