Froome doping or not?

cougie

Woah. Froomes better than a motorbike ? I've seen it all now.

mattsaw

cougie wrote:

Woah. Froomes better than a motorbike ? I've seen it all now.

The famous Donington win where he beat Valentino Rossi into second?

trivial_poursuivant

timtak wrote:

Several, well four, years later and Froome is still winning. Do we know now, or have any clues?

Are there any signs either way?

E.g. I felt that a long jaw is a sign of human growth hormone. A certain swim team all looked liked the Edvard Munch mask used by the baddy in the movie Scream. Froome does not have a long jaw imho.

But there may be other signs of other drugs, perhaps?

Jimmy Hill and Bruce Forsyth must have been doping it up something big in the 60's then. Utter BS and proof that people will read any old ribbish and believe it. Stop been a sheep to the journalists who write controversial stories with no basis to sell papers or magazines. This crap happens with football and rugby. Some prick who's never played the game writes shite and people listen and form unsupported opinions. If there was a shred of evidence to suggest Froome had ever done anything other teams and plenty of ex pro riders would be jumping all over it and pointing fingers.

cruff

veronese68

Oh hell, I have a pretty long chin. What does that mean for my SCR rating?

meanredspider

Veronese68 wrote:

Oh hell, I have a pretty long chin. What does that mean for my SCR rating?

An asterisk against your results, V68. Besides that, you've already admitted to doping on another thread

pblakeney

Conclusive proof!
Chins = Doping.

mattsaw

PBlakeney wrote:

Conclusive proof!
Chins = Doping.

I overtook a guy with a double chin this morning, does that cast suspicion over my Strava placings?
:shock:

reformedfatty

Massive doping obvs

GedFoss

Aero face. Must count as cheating in of itself.

meanredspider

Chin spoiler

cruff

Counts as an extra fairing for TTs - not legal - clearly cheating

veronese68

Rats, it'll have to be plastic surgery to hide my doping then.

burnthesheep

bompington wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

qwe123 wrote:

I just think that it is very mysterious that he is so much better than the other classification riders. He sprints of course up the mountains.

Yes because it's not feasible to be 'so much better' than the opposition without cheating? Leonardo Da Vinci was obviously doping too.

You sound like a bitter Frenchman to be honest.

For some reason I can't quite LAy a finger on, a LArge proportion of bitter people LAbelling Sky as dopers appear to be American ;-)

Maybe because there's a memorial on top of a mountain of a Brit who we KNEW doped and DIED while doping in the TdF. It seems so many others were "forgivable" or worthy of using shady tactics to hide it until a brash and rude American dared do the same thing at another level.

A cheat is a cheat. Cheats shouldn't get monuments.

Lookyhere

burnthesheep wrote:

bompington wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

qwe123 wrote:

I just think that it is very mysterious that he is so much better than the other classification riders. He sprints of course up the mountains.

Yes because it's not feasible to be 'so much better' than the opposition without cheating? Leonardo Da Vinci was obviously doping too.

You sound like a bitter Frenchman to be honest.

For some reason I can't quite LAy a finger on, a LArge proportion of bitter people LAbelling Sky as dopers appear to be American ;-)

Maybe because there's a memorial on top of a mountain of a Brit who we KNEW doped and DIED while doping in the TdF. It seems so many others were "forgivable" or worthy of using shady tactics to hide it until a brash and rude American dared do the same thing at another level.

A cheat is a cheat. Cheats shouldn't get monuments.

Unless he is an American, then he is a evil freak. the folk who have made claims against LA that he was this manipulative monster, were also let off for "co-operating" funny that.

Froome is exceptional BUT he is hekped because he is surrounded by a team of very very good riders, his contemporaries do not have this and in the TDF thats a huge disadvantage, take a look at the stage where froome had a wheel issue, had Froome not had very strong mates, he d have lost minutes.

cookeeemonster

Lookyhere wrote:

burnthesheep wrote:

bompington wrote:

Bustacapp wrote:

qwe123 wrote:

I just think that it is very mysterious that he is so much better than the other classification riders. He sprints of course up the mountains.

Yes because it's not feasible to be 'so much better' than the opposition without cheating? Leonardo Da Vinci was obviously doping too.

You sound like a bitter Frenchman to be honest.

For some reason I can't quite LAy a finger on, a LArge proportion of bitter people LAbelling Sky as dopers appear to be American ;-)

Maybe because there's a memorial on top of a mountain of a Brit who we KNEW doped and DIED while doping in the TdF. It seems so many others were "forgivable" or worthy of using shady tactics to hide it until a brash and rude American dared do the same thing at another level.

A cheat is a cheat. Cheats shouldn't get monuments.

Unless he is an American, then he is a evil freak. the folk who have made claims against LA that he was this manipulative monster, were also let off for "co-operating" funny that.

Froome is exceptional BUT he is hekped because he is surrounded by a team of very very good riders, his contemporaries do not have this and in the TDF thats a huge disadvantage, take a look at the stage where froome had a wheel issue, had Froome not had very strong mates, he d have lost minutes.

Pretty much every legendary rider from at least Coppi onwards had a strong team helping them. They became team leader by earning their stripes and being the best...unfortunately once there it takes a lot to unseat them. Probably been many dozens of riders who could've won the tdf given the chance...but it's a tough and cruel sport sometimes. That's the way it is.

bonk_king

Thanks to cyclings dodgy past it will be a long long time before the "is he or isn't he doping" questions will go away, and that is very very sad. I don't believe froomey is doping, i just think he is an exceptional talent, but more importantly he has an equally talented team. The team helps him out and on the occasion he has to go it alone, on a TT for example, he is one of the best. If you were to interview froomey in 10 years time looking back on his career and ask him which TDF's he holds dear the most i bet the answer will be number 1 (first time always special yeah) and number 6 (for obvious reasons). The only thing stopping him is if some other mega team comes along with SKYs financial clout to really put the pressure on SKY.

magictrumpet

The reason for Sky's dominance is obvious: money.

You don't need to look to doping for the answer. If you can buy the level of super-domestique that Froome has around him, doping just isn't necessary. Froome's good. No question. But imagine the more interesting challenge he'd face without his team who are head and shoulders above everyone else.

Why invent doping claims when the reason is this obvious?

It's a shame that it's as 'easy'* to buy success in cycling as it is in the other boring sports which aren't worth watching...F1, soccerball (aka shitball), etc.

*riding the TdF is not 'easy', I know that!

norvernrob

MagicTrumpet wrote:

The reason for Sky's dominance is obvious: money.

You don't need to look to doping for the answer. If you can buy the level of super-domestique that Froome has around him, doping just isn't necessary. Froome's good. No question. But imagine the more interesting challenge he'd face without his team who are head and shoulders above everyone else.

Why invent doping claims when the reason is this obvious?

It's a shame that it's as 'easy'* to buy success in cycling as it is in the other boring sports which aren't worth watching...F1, soccerball (aka shitball), etc.

*riding the TdF is not 'easy', I know that!

Katusha had a budget not far short of Sky's last year. Plus Sky pretty much base their plans on GT's, how many super climbing domestiques does Sagans salary buy for instance?

Of course money matters, and makes a difference. But it's not the be all and end all.

magictrumpet

Still don't think doping is the reason. Sky just have better riders, no?

sloppyschleckonds

MagicTrumpet wrote:

Still don't think doping is the reason. Sky just have better riders, no?

How long have you been watching cycling :?:

magictrumpet

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

MagicTrumpet wrote:

Still don't think doping is the reason. Sky just have better riders, no?

How long have you been watching cycling :?:

Long enough,thanks very much.

Have long have you been writing banging techno?

I'm not cycling fanatic no, I have other things to do and don't claim an insider's expertise. (There's inrng for that)

But all I see is Sky with a solid 4 or 5 guys round Froome shepherding him from start to finish on every stage.

I don't see that depth in the other teams.

What's your theory? All of them doping??

milemuncher1

There's no way Sky would be stupid enough to risk doping. There are a lot of people who would love to stick both boots into them, if they did. Their success is due to having the team set up and financial clout, to attract a team of riders, pretty much any of who could take the GC, if they were allowed to, or an incident with Froome, discounted him. There aren't any other teams who contest the TdF at present, with the number of riders, at the standard of Sky's.

roger_merriman

MagicTrumpet wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

MagicTrumpet wrote:

Still don't think doping is the reason. Sky just have better riders, no?

How long have you been watching cycling :?:

Long enough,thanks very much.

Have long have you been writing banging techno?

I'm not cycling fanatic no, I have other things to do and don't claim an insider's expertise. (There's inrng for that)

But all I see is Sky with a solid 4 or 5 guys round Froome shepherding him from start to finish on every stage.

I don't see that depth in the other teams.

What's your theory? All of them doping??

It's not just the strength it's also the management of the the team, thinking of one of Fabio Aru teammates who was actually happy he lost yellow etc.

How much heat has Froom and Sky taken for Wiggo and the TUE. anything more would destroy Sky.

okgo

Milemuncher1 wrote:

There's no way Sky would be stupid enough to risk doping. There are a lot of people who would love to stick both boots into them, if they did. Their success is due to having the team set up and financial clout, to attract a team of riders, pretty much any of who could take the GC, if they were allowed to, or an incident with Froome, discounted him. There aren't any other teams who contest the TdF at present, with the number of riders, at the standard of Sky's.

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE bollocks was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

fenix

Pfft one incident. That's not doping. Look at Lance and his teams and Astana - now that's doping...

surrey_commuter

Fenix wrote:

Pfft one incident. That's not doping. Look at Lance and his teams and Astana - now that's doping...

unbelievable bad luck - the one time they cheat they get caught

fenix

I prefer to think of it more as bending the rules...

okgo

Fenix wrote:

I prefer to think of it more as bending the rules...

I forgot it was school holidays.

rick_chasey

okgo wrote:

They already have, and did with Wiggins. That TUE **** was cheating, anyone with a brain can see that.

So that'll be why it didn't contravene any anti doping rulez.

Rulez are rulez. He didn't break 'em, suck it up.