Chris Froome tweet

r0bh

Maybe we should append our academic qualifications to our user names?

r0bh BSc (1st class Hons) PhD

fleshtuxedo

This is almost as good as Tuesday's stage.

Thanks for the laughs FF.

frenchfighter

Pross wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

You need to watch more racing.

That's brilliant if aimed at phil s, you do know what he does for a living don't you?

No idea. I can only judge on what he posts.

Pross

Well, you probably watch a lot of his work!

frenchfighter

mfin wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

My points hold. I'm not blinkered by any means - you dont get First class from one of the best universities in the World and a strong career by being blinkered.

Surely this statement basically means you are what you despise?

Eh? Fortunately top education is not the preserve of the rich and privileged despite it being easier to obtain should those two exist.

Would you say then that in general, people who have Degrees are more open-minded than people who haven't?

That is a restrictive statement and not what I was saying. Additionally 'Degree' is lowercase.

frenchfighter

Pross wrote:

Well, you probably watch a lot of his work!

Ah rings a bell - GCN? No I dont watch any of it.

Paulie W

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

blazing_saddles

Pross wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

You need to watch more racing.

That's brilliant if aimed at phil s, you do know what he does for a living don't you?

Of course he does.
You dont get First class from one of the best universities in the World and a strong career by being blinkered.

Sjaak

Paulie W wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

The Clinic - generally not a place where a First-from-a-top-3 should hang out:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.p ... ount=10768

blazing_saddles

Paulie W wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

It's from someone with the username neineinei, in the Chris Froome Talks thread in Clinic.
It has become the rallying point for those sages, who are now crying there is no need to test, because it doesn't prove clean.
The very same Clinic sages who last week, were wailing and gnashing their teeth at Cookson over how fully independent testing would prove cycling clean. :roll:

Pross

frenchfighter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Well, you probably watch a lot of his work!

Ah rings a bell - GCN? No I dont watch any of it.

I don't think it's just GCN though. The upshot is he is at a lot of racing live and has probably had more contact with the riders than anyone else on this forum.

Paulie W

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

It's from someone with the username neineinei, in the Chris Froome Talks thread in Clinic.
It has become the rallying point for those sages, who are now crying there is no need to test, because it doesn't prove clean.
The very same Clinic sages who last week, were wailing and gnashing their teeth at Cookson over how fully independent testing would prove cycling clean. :roll:

I knew it was from the Clinic without even checking. I just wanted him to admit it.

Pross

Sjaak wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

The Clinic - generally not a place where a First-from-a-top-3 should hang out:

That explains it, the argument makes no sense at all - how do you catch cheats if you don't test people? The remote island bit is also crap, it's Tenerife not some Polynesian atoll - you can fly there direct from Cardiff! Besides, I thought anti-doping is carried out by the local agency (could be wrong) which would be even less hassle. Three of the most high profile riders in the peloton and their teams are all there in one hotel. The inference is that they are all considered squeeky clean and it's not worth the hassle / cost of bothering them.

No_Ta_Doctor

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

frenchfighter

Pross wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Well, you probably watch a lot of his work!

Ah rings a bell - GCN? No I dont watch any of it.

I don't think it's just GCN though. The upshot is he is at a lot of racing live and has probably had more contact with the riders than anyone else on this forum.

Great, hopefully he can fill us in on which rider says what about Froome and Contador.

RichN95.

Paulie W wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Taken from another place:

Anti-doping isn't meant to prove anyone is clean. The sole purpose of anti-doping is to catch cheats and make it difficult to dope. This idiotic idea that anti-doping is there to prove athletes are clean must be wiped out.

If Froome wants to be tested more he can go train somewhere else than an remote island, or he can campaign for better funding for anti-doping. Sky and Froome have never prior to this winter been the least worried about training for months in remote places (Colombia, Teide) where they know from experience there is very little chance of being tested.

What is the source for this out of interest? It's poor form not to reference.

I doubt it's a proper writer, probably off a forum. It's pretty stupid. Firstly it assumes that Froome's issue is with him personally not being tested rather than testing as a whole. Secondly they think Teide is remote (it's one of the most visited national parks in the EU) and that Colombia is remote(not to Colombians it's not)

No_Ta_Doctor

frenchfighter wrote:

Pross wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Pross wrote:

Well, you probably watch a lot of his work!

Ah rings a bell - GCN? No I dont watch any of it.

I don't think it's just GCN though. The upshot is he is at a lot of racing live and has probably had more contact with the riders than anyone else on this forum.

Great, hopefully he can fill us in on which rider says what about Froome and Contador.

That would be great, as you've been claiming without presenting any evidence that the peloton doesn't like Froome. Nice to see you finally admit you actually have no idea and just assume this is the case because it mirrors your own attitude.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

Generally I would agree with this. Some people are able to get Firsts and do the rest as well. F uck the pub though.

frenchfighter

No tA Doctor wrote:

That would be great, as you've been claiming without presenting any evidence that the peloton doesn't like Froome. Nice to see you finally admit you actually have no idea and just assume this is the case because it mirrors your own attitude.

I didnt admit anything of the sort. I still hold to my views which are not formed in cloud cuckoo land but from assimilating a ton of info from a wide range of places over many years. Any additional info is welcome though.

frenchfighter

How does it feel to be so right about everything Rich? :roll:

Paulie W

No tA Doctor wrote:

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

Still bitter about that 67% average eh?! They should have at least viva'ed you right?!

frenchfighter

As far as I am aware Blazing you are the resident expert on the Clinic and I reckon Rich is there very often and likely a few others. I hardly ever go there.

mfin

frenchfighter wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

Generally I would agree with this. Some people are able to get Firsts and do the rest as well. F uck the pub though.

Why? What's wrong with pubs? Is it the drinking or the people in the pubs that put you off so strongly?

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

How does it feel to be so right about everything Rich? :roll:

I don't know, I only got a 2.2

salsiccia1

Easy now, everyone.

I'll point everyone's attention to a quote from the Secret Pro, http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/the-secret-pro-post-tour-de-france-edition/

Secret Pro wrote:

The whole thing about performance analysis and Froome not being clean was only a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean. From the interactions I’ve had with him over the years he’s been a complete gentleman and his performances certainly haven’t come from nowhere.

Of course, somebody had to be the media whipping boy this Tour, and if it wasn’t Froome, it would have been someone else. I’m not sure anyone else would have done as good a job as him in handling it as he did.

salsiccia1

By the way, I don't have a degree, and dropped out of A-Levels after 3 months. Am I qualified to comment?

mfin

Salsiccia1 wrote:

By the way, I don't have a degree, and dropped out of A-Levels after 3 months. Am I qualified to comment?

No I'm afraid you can't, your views will be blinkered.

RideOnTime

No tA Doctor wrote:

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

Obvious that was coming.

salsiccia1

mfin wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

By the way, I don't have a degree, and dropped out of A-Levels after 3 months. Am I qualified to comment?

No I'm afraid you can't, your views will be blinkered.

Damn.

No_Ta_Doctor

Paulie W wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

In my experience, people with first c lass degrees were generally those that spent their university time absolutely committed to their studies and didn't get out much. When they got up to collect their degrees the hall murmured "who the hell is that?" If you really want to find people who are open to new ideas, responsive to counter argument from others and generally quite balanced in their opinions then look to the ones who were smart enough to get a 2.1 while spending most of the time down the pub or pursuing other interests.

Proud owner of a 2.1 and a wealth of other experiences.

Still bitter about that 67% average eh?! They should have at least viva'ed you right?!

Not in the slightest :-) Got what I deserved (more than I deserved according to some!)

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

How does it feel to be so right about everything Rich? :roll:

I don't know, I only got a 2.2

Bet you can handle your beer though.