Can I just ask a lil question, well 2, but still...
1- What are the "facts and indirect evidence" that Froome is doping? Never seen any, and if they're what you've posted here then that's not really a fact, just a statement which makes it look slightly more like he is doping,
2- Everyone says it's so obvious Froome is doping. If the odds are as likely of getting away with it as you all say then why don't all cyclists do it? If it gets results and is detected 1/100+ times...
3- I don't think any of you really believe Froome dopes. You hate him because he's a winner, and a dominant one, bit like Vettel, Schumacher, (some people) Spain, Barcelona, etc etc. No one likes someone who wins all the time, at least not any more. Maybe in the past yes, but now, and I don't know why, there are no dominant and well liked champions.
You would probably say the same thing if it was Nibali or Horner or Kreuziger or Valverde ruling the tours. You just want him out the way so the fight would be between the rest of the people, at least till one of them rises higher, then he must be cheating. I guess it makes a sort of sense, but you all need to be more optimistic.
I guess his personality has an impact, don't see how his riding style does, it's very similar to Contador/ Schleck/ ( even ) Nibali/ Valverde. In the mountains, he just happens to be better there and far superior in TTs. I don't even like him that much....
The Hobbit wrote:
You hate him because he's a winner, and a dominant one, bit like Vettel, Schumacher, (some people) Spain, Barcelona, etc etc. No one likes someone who wins all the time, at least not any more. Maybe in the past yes, but now, and I don't know why, there are no dominant and well liked champions.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Read the sky doping topic Hobbit, saying something here would be only repeating for a hundred time.
I sort of see his point though. 'Facts' that indicate doping get lost in these discussions turned arguments. If we want to establish any sort of clear and decent discussion on the subject of Froome, and therefore get rid of the 'Hate' aspect in the Sky Doping/Hate thread, we really need to establish a full list of facts, notions and reasons that speak both in favour and against Froome.
Otherwise the entire discussion is quite pointless.
Well, that discussion IS pointless. Anybody who have seen any cycling races during last 20 years can tell what is going on here. Others? Well, they cant be helped.
The Hobbit wrote:
Can I just ask a lil question, well 2, but still...
1- What are the "facts and indirect evidence" that Froome is doping? Never seen any, and if they're what you've posted here then that's not really a fact, just a statement which makes it look slightly more like he is doping,
2- Everyone says it's so obvious Froome is doping. If the odds are as likely of getting away with it as you all say then why don't all cyclists do it? If it gets results and is detected 1/100+ times...
3- I don't think any of you really believe Froome dopes. You hate him because he's a winner, and a dominant one, bit like Vettel, Schumacher, (some people) Spain, Barcelona, etc etc. No one likes someone who wins all the time, at least not any more. Maybe in the past yes, but now, and I don't know why, there are no dominant and well liked champions.
You would probably say the same thing if it was Nibali or Horner or Kreuziger or Valverde ruling the tours. You just want him out the way so the fight would be between the rest of the people, at least till one of them rises higher, then he must be cheating. I guess it makes a sort of sense, but you all need to be more optimistic.
I guess his personality has an impact, don't see how his riding style does, it's very similar to Contador/ Schleck/ ( even ) Nibali/ Valverde. In the mountains, he just happens to be better there and far superior in TTs. I don't even like him that much....
Do yourself a favour, and do one to us as well : stop writing non sense and check your facts.
I would read the Sky doping thread, but most of it is rubbish, I've tried, but I haven't seen anything in there that makes sense and is real evidence, maybe I'm missing something.
I would read the Sky doping thread, but most of it is rubbish, I've tried, but I haven't seen anything in there that makes sense and is real evidence, maybe I'm missing something.
sorry, won't happen again
Briefly in answer to question 1, probably the most significant bit of indirect evidence is that pre the Vuelta 2011 he showed no notable form. He then became a GT contender overnight and has subsequently become the dominant force in stage races.
No matter how many theories of preceding illness etc there are history would suggest that doping is a likely explanation. His case isn't helped by him reportedly struggling to get a contract renewal at the time of the transformation.
For me those facts, even alongside other evidence, much of it subjective, isn't enough to prove anything but there are certainly some significant question marks. However, I can understand people who have witnessed similar circumstances a hundred times coming to a definitive conclusion. If such talk frustrates, depresses or annoys you then steer well clear.
Personally I'm prepared to give anyone the benefit of the doubt even when it's a considerable level of doubt. For me it's too fine a line to me not enjoying sport full stop as my first thought when anyone wins would soon become doper.
Now some context on me - I am a Sky fan though not exclusively but I find Froome comes across as insincere so I'm certainly not a fan of his.
Hope this helps, there's nothing wrong in believing in something but certainly question and likewise accept others will have an opposing opinion that is felt just as strongly and often justifiably.
Also apologies if this comes across as patronising, it's not my intention
Sky first year : ethical, working on fixing details and small margins, no significant result.
Sky from year two onwards : given up ethics, hired dodgy staff members, such as the infamous Dr Leinders who's a doping doctor if you don't know him, and they become the strongest team in the world.
Small margins probably a delayed effect, I can't see any other explanations for such a change among their riders. Jebbus kraist, did you not see that in the Sky thread or is it really the first time someone comes up with this on this forum ? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question...
They train harder/better blablabla, we had that with Armstrong, with Indurain and Rominger, Jalabert, etc. If we didn't know at the time, we've learnt our lesson since then.
Some of us like Contador ? I can't see what this has to do with anything. A cheat is a cheat, if Sky cheat it's not ok just because Contador dopes too.
Why don't they all dope ? Seriously, do you have the smallest idea of how much it'd cost ? And maybe you're underestimating the commitment to a fair sport ? Doping has ruined many lives...
Odds to get away with it ? With a top medical staff, about 100 % these days. Heck, even Horner whose biopassport has "doped" written all over it is getting away with it.
Believe whatever you want, unicorns and fairy tales... I'm more concerned by facts and truth but I'm probably old-fashioned.
Peaking very young, which didn't happen so often in years of heavy doping, he'll probably be a random/average leader before he turns 30.
He's good on short efforts, but yet to show something special on efforts lasting 30 minutes or more.
Huge power and huge muscles, so he's got the raw power and decent W/kg (meaning he can climb to some extent).
I doubt he could become a real climber, his W/kg would drop as he'd need to drop muscles, and he's not good enough on ~45 minutes efforts.
Better focus on classics or on week-long stage races without too much altitude or too long climbs.
I don't really know Sagan or his background, I believe Cannondale have one dodgy doctor (I forgot his name, but someone posted a link to a page with a dozen of those doctors and the team(s) they're working for), so it's hard to tell.
What he does looks credible, and he's always been a beast from a young age.
Hopefully time will tell if there's something to know.
Aquarius wrote:
Peaking very young, which didn't happen so often in years of heavy doping, he'll probably be a random/average leader before he turns 30.
He's good on short efforts, but yet to show something special on efforts lasting 30 minutes or more.
Huge power and huge muscles, so he's got the raw power and decent W/kg (meaning he can climb to some extent).
I doubt he could become a real climber, his W/kg would drop as he'd need to drop muscles, and he's not good enough on ~45 minutes efforts.
Better focus on classics or on week-long stage races without too much altitude or too long climbs.
I don't really know Sagan or his background, I believe Cannondale have one dodgy doctor (I forgot his name, but someone posted a link to a page with a dozen of those doctors and the team(s) they're working for), so it's hard to tell.
What he does looks credible, and he's always been a beast from a young age.
Hopefully time will tell if there's something to know.
Wouldn't you count Cunego as peaking young Ricco, Dekker etc... I would say it was uncommon but your analysis on his 30 minutes or less effort is very interesting he doesn't seem to have that 30+ minutes power as shown by his TT results but I can't agree on the looking credible part e.g. TOur last year getting to the top of them hill top finish not looking like he'd raced, putting 30 seconds into a 10 man group in gent-wevelgem by just riding off the front but i guess it's personal opinion.
Avin Wargunnson wrote: Anybody who have seen any cycling races during last 20 years can tell what is going on here.
How do you explain Sagan?
I did like 100 hundred times here on Daily, over half of topics. Why? Because every time avin says doper, he is slaped into face by Sagan.
I am sure you read some of my posts about him (well,half of my posts are about him), especially where i wrote how succesful he was in off road disciplines and how he was dominating opposition since childhood.
What does it have to do with Froome anyway? Was Foome a MTB and cycloscross world champion? (or silver medalist in case of cyclocross and Sagan).
So if you want to compare the cases (which his stupid), compare one rider as coming from nobody to GT dominator and second as lifetime dominator across cycling disciplines improving as going through the ranks...
And i never ruled out that Sagan can be a doper btw.
issoisso wrote:
I'm not going to bother writing on Froome as to do justice to all the smoke around him I'd have to spend 20 minutes writing and I don't feel like it right now
But I have to give kudos to The Hobbit for his hilarious choice of examples
Setting ze germanz aside, his examples are:
- Valverde, a convicted doper
- Horner, the 2nd most obvious doper I've personally ever seen, just after Froome, a guy who even Vaughters calls his blood passport 'hilarious'
- Nibali, a Dr. Ferrari client
- Spain, clients of Dr. Fuentes
- Barcelona who tried to hire Fuentes as team doctor
- Kreuziger, another Ferrari client
Dude, if you're trolling, 5/5
To be fair, the examples, I was a bit, tried to think of some, realised there weren't any, so yeah, dunno y I said them... Back to the point though, none of this is really evidence, and there are quite a few riders with quick evolutions that we haven't spoken much of, if it's so believable Sagan is an early peaker, maybe Froome is a late peaker?
It doesn't annoy me that much you say he is doping, it does a bit, especially for riders I like, but anyway, I like arguing, even if most of what I say sounds better in my head...
More to the point, it is really horrible to convict someone without evidence. If I invited you round to my house, and after you leave I see my pencil is missing, then I wouldn't blame you forever for stealing my pencil, and never invite you round again. Unless of course I had evidence, in which case i might, if it was a nice pencil.
That was another thing that sounded better in my head wasn't it... Oh well...
issoisso wrote:
I'm not going to bother writing on Froome as to do justice to all the smoke around him I'd have to spend 20 minutes writing and I don't feel like it right now
But I have to give kudos to The Hobbit for his hilarious choice of examples
Setting ze germanz aside, his examples are:
- Valverde, a convicted doper
- Horner, the 2nd most obvious doper I've personally ever seen, just after Froome, a guy who even Vaughters calls his blood passport 'hilarious'
- Nibali, a Dr. Ferrari client
- Spain, clients of Dr. Fuentes
- Barcelona who tried to hire Fuentes as team doctor
- Kreuziger, another Ferrari client
Dude, if you're trolling, 5/5
To be fair, the examples, I was a bit, tried to think of some, realised there weren't any, so yeah, dunno y I said them... Back to the point though, none of this is really evidence, and there are quite a few riders with quick evolutions that we haven't spoken much of, if it's so believable Sagan is an early peaker, maybe Froome is a late peaker?
It doesn't annoy me that much you say he is doping, it does a bit, especially for riders I like, but anyway, I like arguing, even if most of what I say sounds better in my head...
More to the point, it is really horrible to convict someone without evidence. If I invited you round to my house, and after you leave I see my pencil is missing, then I wouldn't blame you forever for stealing my pencil, and never invite you round again. Unless of course I had evidence, in which case i might, if it was a nice pencil.
That was another thing that sounded better in my head wasn't it... Oh well...
Try reading my post a few up unless of course you're adament you want to go round in circles for evermore. I'll stay out of those circles now though
Avin Wargunnson wrote: Anybody who have seen any cycling races during last 20 years can tell what is going on here.
How do you explain Sagan?
I did like 100 hundred times here on Daily, over half of topics. Why? Because every time avin says doper, he is slaped into face by Sagan.
I am sure you read some of my posts about him (well,half of my posts are about him), especially where i wrote how succesful he was in off road disciplines and how he was dominating opposition since childhood.
What does it have to do with Froome anyway? Was Foome a MTB and cycloscross world champion? (or silver medalist in case of cyclocross and Sagan).
So if you want to compare the cases (which his stupid), compare one rider as coming from nobody to GT dominator and second as lifetime dominator across cycling disciplines improving as going through the ranks...
And i never ruled out that Sagan can be a doper btw.
I didn't mean compare him to froome I think froome an obvious doper and sorry I dont really read the cycling topics on this forum much so I don't know it was a repetitive thing I just thought it was quite strange that knowing you are a Sagan fan the way you used to show froome was doping was the past 20 years of cycling when guys who are super young riders like Sagan e.g. Ricco , Dekker have all been caught how can you then sit there and say it's just because he's dominant and that means e's doping surely it would be better to use the doctors he's worked with his w/kg that stupid data that came out during the tour saying he is right on the limit of physical performance otherwise we might as well just implicate anyone who wins any race looking too good or too easy
