Froome interview in Rouleur
Comments
-
sjmclean wrote:mike6 wrote:sjmclean wrote:having read the article it is clear why he doesn't mention Contador, he is talking about winning back to back tours, which Contador hasn't done. He had one taken off of him for a doping offence, no matter how small the trace in the sample was, he is a convicted doper. It is strange to mention Lance, but maybe because he is such a huge figure in the history of cycling. I also get the vibe that Contador and Froome don't particularly like each other, so maybe that has factored in his thinking.
He probably feels the same as Wiggins. You work and work to get to the top, and all lazy so called journalists can do is accuse you of being a cheat. You tell them you are not and they say "Ah well, Armstrong said that". I would take the same stance as Brad, with a few more expletives. It probably hacks them off even more that there are convicted dopers welcomed back into the peloton and allowed to carry on in teams run by proven dopers. :roll:
Very true, but what can you expect, and how can you expect change? When one of most outspoken anti-doping team is constantly accused of doping, yet you have silly fan boys, still claiming riders have won titles that they have had taken off of them for cheating.
Garmin were supposed to have been the new shining light of clean cycling. Look what happened there
Teams will say exactly what they need to say even when they have hired ex dopers and doping Dr's and ex riders getting caught for PED's.
Being outspoken means nothing.
No one admits to doping they just get caught or not as is more likely.
I watched a race. I saw cyclists battle over 3 weeks. I saw a winner. It happened. Fact
Ignore it if you want but it did happen no matter what the record books show.
I bet you enjoyed Vino's Olympic win I Did. 0 -
RichN95 wrote:
And what did happen there?rayjay wrote:
Garmin were supposed to have been the new shining light of clean cycling. Look what happened there
Seriously Rich, a team full of dopers, a manager exposed as a doper. None of them own up until they are forced to.
Garmin, A bright new future of clean Cycling 0 -
The first rider Slipstream signed was David Millar. They have never said that they wouldn't have riders who had doped in the past, just that they wouldn't dope themselves. And so far no-one has shown otherwise. And as for Vaughters being 'exposed', he's been hinting at it for years.rayjay wrote:Seriously Rich, a team full of dopers, a manager exposed as a doper. None of them own up until they are forced to.
Garmin, A bright new future of clean Cycling
If you expect them to be something they have never claimed or tried to be, then that's your fault not theirs.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
The first rider Slipstream signed was David Millar. They have never said that they wouldn't have riders who had doped in the past, just that they wouldn't dope themselves. And so far no-one has shown otherwise. And as for Vaughters being 'exposed', he's been hinting at it for years.rayjay wrote:Seriously Rich, a team full of dopers, a manager exposed as a doper. None of them own up until they are forced to.
Garmin, A bright new future of clean Cycling
If you expect them to be something they have never claimed or tried to be, then that's your fault not theirs.
All those Garmin/Slipstream riders that got busted in the wake of Armstrong should have owned up at the beginning. Vaughters Should have come clean as well.
A team who were supposed to be taking cycling into a clean age and are full of ex dopers who only own up because they are caught including their manager. That's the future.
Ryder, who's next?
Nothing has changed.
Show me different?0 -
rayjay wrote:RichN95 wrote:
The first rider Slipstream signed was David Millar. They have never said that they wouldn't have riders who had doped in the past, just that they wouldn't dope themselves. And so far no-one has shown otherwise. And as for Vaughters being 'exposed', he's been hinting at it for years.rayjay wrote:Seriously Rich, a team full of dopers, a manager exposed as a doper. None of them own up until they are forced to.
Garmin, A bright new future of clean Cycling
If you expect them to be something they have never claimed or tried to be, then that's your fault not theirs.
All those Garmin/Slipstream riders that got busted in the wake of Armstrong should have owned up at the beginning. Vaughters Should have come clean as well.
A team who were supposed to be taking cycling into a clean age and are full of ex dopers who only own up because they are caught including their manager. That's the future.
Ryder, who's next?
Nothing has changed.
Show me different?
Vaughters knew about Ryder, I'm assuming when they joined the team he asked. The mantra was to work with ex dopers not to not have any on the teams. Why do you feel they have to make it in the public domain, basically you are angry because someone (the team) knew and you didn't.0 -
rayjay wrote:RichN95 wrote:
The first rider Slipstream signed was David Millar. They have never said that they wouldn't have riders who had doped in the past, just that they wouldn't dope themselves. And so far no-one has shown otherwise. And as for Vaughters being 'exposed', he's been hinting at it for years.rayjay wrote:Seriously Rich, a team full of dopers, a manager exposed as a doper. None of them own up until they are forced to.
Garmin, A bright new future of clean Cycling
If you expect them to be something they have never claimed or tried to be, then that's your fault not theirs.
All those Garmin/Slipstream riders that got busted in the wake of Armstrong should have owned up at the beginning. Vaughters Should have come clean as well.
A team who were supposed to be taking cycling into a clean age and are full of ex dopers who only own up because they are caught including their manager. That's the future.
Ryder, who's next?
Nothing has changed.
Show me different?
A team of ex dopers riding clean and supported in doing so by an ex doper manager is the different approach
No?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Sjmclean . I am not angry one bit. Just expressing a view
I don't see how a team can come on to the scene with a strong anti doping stance and then we find out most of the team have been doping.
They should have come out from the beginning and stated that they had doped.
Vaughter's should have led by example.
How do you know that there has been no doping going on at Garmin/Slipstream?
If it wasn't through Armstrong, Vaughters and co would never have confessed to doping.
Same as Ryder with chicken.
If you want to promote a clean team then be honest out front. Don't wait until you are caught and have to air old dirty laundry.
They are no different to any other rider caught doping. But for some reason, some of you are happy to see some ex doped riders race and others you want to see the back of.
Hypocritical IMO0 -
Rayjay:
In terms of ex-dopers I personally think that anyone who has been convicted of doping by the authorities should never race again in sanctioned events.
I thought when Millar took some ownership in the team it was to be the team with x dopers who were now clean?
Also I don't know doping hasn't been going on at Garmin, but unlike some people on here I like to think teams/riders are innocent until proven otherwise. Instead of wandering about making wild accusations about teams/riders without any form of evidence.0 -
sjmclean wrote:Rayjay:
In terms of ex-dopers I personally think that anyone who has been convicted of doping by the authorities should never race again in sanctioned events.
I thought when Millar took some ownership in the team it was to be the team with x dopers who were now clean?
Also I don't know doping hasn't been going on at Garmin, but unlike some people on here I like to think teams/riders are innocent until proven otherwise. Instead of wandering about making wild accusations about teams/riders without any form of evidence.
Like I said sjm , I don't like the way that we have team riding with quite a few admitted dopers and yet most people are not concerned. Yet when a Spanish or Italian rider gets busted everyone is up in arms. A cheat is a cheat.
I agree with your first statement if we are going clamp down on doped athletes then that is going to be the only way or they might as well let them dope because there are no real consequences for doping as a team like Garmin prove.
As for wild accusations I think it's more about common sense. Someone said exactly the same thing when I mentioned the suspicions about Rodgers within a day or 2 he got busted.
In my opinion when you look at a team and they have a history of doped riders I don't think there is anything wild about being suspicious of them doping.
I can pretend that I think Cycling and other sports are clean but there not as recent busts have once again proved.0 -
rayjay wrote:As for wild accusations I think it's more about common sense. Someone said exactly the same thing when I mentioned the suspicions about Rodgers within a day or 2 he got busted.
In my opinion when you look at a team and they have a history of doped riders I don't think there is anything wild about being suspicious of them doping.
So you throw accusations of doping at pretty much every cyclist and then when one actually does test positive it's proof that you are the new Mystic Meg and that we should offer your opinion some kind of credibility?
I think you are missing the point of Garmin's ethos. They have basically done their own version of truth and reconciliation, if you have doped in the past you admit it to the team (not the general public) prior to joining and pledge to race clean in future. It's not perfect in the same way as Sky's zero tolerance is not perfect but I tend to trust teams that have a policy to those who take the ostrich or three wise monkey approaches to riders0 -
Pross wrote:rayjay wrote:As for wild accusations I think it's more about common sense. Someone said exactly the same thing when I mentioned the suspicions about Rodgers within a day or 2 he got busted.
In my opinion when you look at a team and they have a history of doped riders I don't think there is anything wild about being suspicious of them doping.
So you throw accusations of doping at pretty much every cyclist and then when one actually does test positive it's proof that you are the new Mystic Meg and that we should offer your opinion some kind of credibility?
I think you are missing the point of Garmin's ethos. They have basically done their own version of truth and reconciliation, if you have doped in the past you admit it to the team (not the general public) prior to joining and pledge to race clean in future. It's not perfect in the same way as Sky's zero tolerance is not perfect but I tend to trust teams that have a policy to those who take the ostrich or three wise monkey approaches to riders
Happy new year Pross. Mystic meg I make my judgement from the facts I do know. In Rodgers case the Links with Ferrari etc. I don't think you have to be mystic meg to call that one.
Obviously if you want to trust a team that has lots of known doped riders and a manager who has doped then that's your choice. I understand the ethos of Garmin but find it almost laughable that they of all teams have such an ethos. If when the team first started Vaughters and co had come clean then that would have made their stance more believable. If you want to have openness then be open from the beginning.
Like I said before it would be far easier to let riders take PED'S if they want and the team could manage each riders health. Its happening in other sports or do you believe that some of the highest paid sport stars Like Zidane etc when they take PEDs are left to their own devices?0 -
Who is backing this boy.
Contador is the Greatest0
