Mean Spirited Press Response to Froome

twotyred

So instead of leading with Chris Froome's great achievement Cycling News decide that Contador's retirement should have higher billing. Surely more appropriate to celebrate Froome today and save a retrospective on Contador for later.

Also The Guardian chose today to post a hatchet job on Froome and Mo Farah the day after they both win.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/11/chris-froome-mo-farah-united-success-disputed-legacy

At least The Telegraph have a more balanced piece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2017/09/10/vuelta-espana-2017-chris-froome-creates-history-winning-la-vuelta/

I've had it with the Cycling News vendetta on Sky and Froome. Is there anywhere else to go to get the latest results

Dorset_Boy

Does Mr Ingle know anything at all about endurance sport, or sport period for that matter?

No doubt someone will call his ignorance out on Twatter.
He could probably also do with a call from Froome and Sky's lawyers.

cooldad

Sean Ingle looks like an angry sort of person.

I wonder if he's on drugs? Meth maybe.

mamba80

Why is it mean spirited? for years the press swallowed these sort of performances without question, LA proved them all wrong, now they are a little more circumspect.

The Guardian article made no accusations against Froome, indeed in the first paragraph called it a staggering achievement, which it is, it questions Brailsford and Skies use of TUE's thats legitimate journalism.

Yep odd about CN and their priorities.

bobmcstuff

Those mean sprites!

Was Froome supposed to grant their freedom after completing the double?

twotyred

Thanks for the proof read

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

The Guardian article made no accusations against Froome, indeed in the first paragraph called it a staggering achievement, which it is, it questions Brailsford and Skies use of TUE's thats legitimate journalism.

But they aren't Froome's TUEs, they're Wiggins's. Froome's TUEs were also leaked and exactly matched what had already publicly said himself. There was no tricimalone. Trying to denounce Froome on the basis of Wiggins's injections when we know he did not have similar is crap journalism.

fat daddy

cooldad wrote:

Sean Ingle looks like an angry sort of person.

I wonder if he's on drugs? Meth maybe.

very possibly. Luke Williams is another journalist, he admitted a meth addiction, so the profession clearly has a problem with it. ergo, Ingle must be suspected of being a drug abuser by association

bobmcstuff

"Froome and his loyal lieutenant Wout Poels made a devastating incline look like a minor inconvenience"

Nobody looked like they were finding that incline easy!

Bo Duke

Bitter little people, probably all under 5'5".

RichN95.

twotyred wrote:

I've had it with the Cycling News vendetta on Sky and Froome. Is there anywhere else to go to get the latest results

For just results www.procyclingstats.com is the industry standard source.

bobmcstuff

fat daddy wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Sean Ingle looks like an angry sort of person.

I wonder if he's on drugs? Meth maybe.

very possibly. Luke Williams is another journalist, he admitted a meth addiction, so the profession clearly has a problem with it. ergo, Ingle must be suspected of being a drug abuser by association

That logic seems rather familiar

above_the_cows

Bloody hell it's tenuous

From the Guardian article:

"It is hard to work out why, given there are obvious similarities between the two which go beyond their achievements. Both were late developers – Froome won his first grand tour at 28, Farah his first world title at the same age. Both have defied Father Time by producing their best performances in their 30s. And both race for teams who remain under scrutiny by sport’s sheriffs."

I'm amazed he didn't add 'both were born in Africa' for good measure.

Richmond Racer 2

Ok

Lets step back a moment

The sport has a hell of a history (as does athletics, which much to people's surprise did not just disappear with Ben Johnson's pozzie and the fall of USSR and German reunification)

Let me be clear: I am unimpressed with the way BW has handled things, and I am HUGELY and even less impressed with Brailsford's handling of things. Taking 10 days to come out with a statement after the news re BW's TUEs hit the press - not good enough. Leaving riders like Thomas to bear the brunt of questioning whilst Brailsford hid on team buses during and after races is p*ss poor.


BUT its inevitable that much of the press cast a quizzical eye. Froome came from nowhere to suddenly become 'the greatest GT rider of the modern era' (as per a number of commentators), and has dominated GT racing in a way not seen since, well, Lance. Then we have Sky exposed to have been more than a little economical with the truth - and then compounded the damage in the dreadful way they handled the fall-out. Much of which can be laid at the door of Brailsford's arrogance IMO.

The time for 'innocent until proven guilty' in cycling is long over, amongst much of the media. Look, Brailsford sewed the seeds of distrust when he lined up the inaugural team to the press containing certain riders and staff whose involvement with previous teams caused a LOT of eyebrows to be raised: and hid Michael Barry in his hotel room from the media, before the start of the Giro just after Landis had named him amongst others.

You can protest on Froome's behalf till the cows come home, but...well, there's cause and effect.

RichN95.

Are Sky really under the scrutiny of 'the sport's sheriffs'. The actual ones, not the self-appointed crusaders. And this idea that Sky's reputation is 'in tatters' because an MP says it.

I mean an Olympic champion who made the Tour podium tested positive and people have already forgotten about it. BMC's reputation isn't in tatters. Nor Trek's after their Tour positive.

mamba80

From the apparently more balanced Telegraph article.... OPs words...

We are in familiar territory here, of course. The ‘why is Froome not more popular than he is?’ debate. Partly, of course, it has to do with Sky. The questions that remain over the unresolved UK Anti-Doping investigation; the Therapeutic Use Exemption saga; Sir Dave Brailsford’s clumsy attempts to make that story go away; the cynicism of a public already wearied from years of doping scandals. Partly it is his upbringing, the fact he was born and grew up in Africa, lives in Monaco and does not come back to Britain all that much.

But never mind the calls for BBC SPOTY awards or knighthoods. There is far too much made of that. Never mind Froome’s popularity. By any objective reckoning – in pure sporting terms, and assuming he is clean – he should surely be recognised by now as one of the greats, not simply of cycling but of British sport.

for me, a much more subtle and far more effective demolition on Froome and as there is absolutely no proof, totally undeserved.

above_the_cows

Yeah but the Guardian piece is just really shoddy tabloidesque crap.

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Are Sky really under the scrutiny of 'the sport's sheriffs'. The actual ones, not the self-appointed crusaders. And this idea that Sky's reputation is 'in tatters' because an MP says it.

I mean an Olympic champion who made the Tour podium tested positive and people have already forgotten about it. BMC's reputation isn't in tatters. Nor Trek's after their Tour positive.

Truly, the team has a cloud over it. And not just on Twatters, or from the writings of a few journos. I feel for those riders who try to ride clean.

trivial_poursuivant

Above The Cows wrote:

Bloody hell it's tenuous

From the Guardian article:

"It is hard to work out why, given there are obvious similarities between the two which go beyond their achievements. Both were late developers – Froome won his first grand tour at 28, Farah his first world title at the same age. Both have defied Father Time by producing their best performances in their 30s. And both race for teams who remain under scrutiny by sport’s sheriffs."

I'm amazed he didn't add 'both were born in Africa' for good measure.

In the current political climate they probably don't want to draw attention to the fact immigrants are responsible for our sporting success.

twotyred

I'm not saying questions shouldn't be asked just that there's a time and place especially when talking about two athletes against whom there is no evidence.

CN's response smacks of petulance after Brailsford banned them from the Sky press event

Richmond Racer 2

twotyred wrote:

I'm not saying questions shouldn't be asked just that there's a time and place especially when talking about two athletes against whom there is no evidence.

CN's response smacks of petulance after Brailsford banned them from the Sky press event

If you've been reading CN since 2012, you'll know that's par for the course. That's been Benson's editorial direction for at least the last 5 years.

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Ok

Lets step back a moment

The sport has a hell of a history (as does athletics, which much to people's surprise did not just disappear with Ben Johnson's pozzie and the fall of USSR and German reunification)

Let me be clear: I am unimpressed with the way BW has handled things, and I am HUGELY and even less impressed with Brailsford's handling of things. Taking 10 days to come out with a statement after the news re BW's TUEs hit the press - not good enough. Leaving riders like Thomas to bear the brunt of questioning whilst Brailsford hid on team buses during and after races is p*ss poor.


BUT its inevitable that much of the press cast a quizzical eye. Froome came from nowhere to suddenly become 'the greatest GT rider of the modern era' (as per a number of commentators), and has dominated GT racing in a way not seen since, well, Lance. Then we have Sky exposed to have been more than a little economical with the truth - and then compounded the damage in the dreadful way they handled the fall-out. Much of which can be laid at the door of Brailsford's arrogance IMO.

The time for 'innocent until proven guilty' in cycling is long over, amongst much of the media. Look, Brailsford sewed the seeds of distrust when he lined up the inaugural team to the press containing certain riders and staff whose involvement with previous teams caused a LOT of eyebrows to be raised: and hid Michael Barry in his hotel room from the media, before the start of the Giro just after Landis had named him amongst others.

You can protest on Froome's behalf till the cows come home, but...well, there's cause and effect.

But none of this is Froome.

It's not his fault he came from a non-cycling country so developed late.
He didn't inject Wiggins
He didn't hire Barry
He's been nothing but open and honest

Froome is being used as a proxy by the media for two retired riders they can't get to - Armstrong and Wiggins. Notice how almost all the arguments against Froome quickly invoke those two names.


Ned Boulting coined the phrase 'chateau lag' where a commentator at the Tour uses the guidebook description of the previous chateau to describe the one on screen. The media have the same with dopers. They tar the present star with the sins of the previous one, because they failed to do it at the time.

Richmond Racer 2

Shrugs

From me who used to work for a huge media organisation:

- He came from nowhere

- He dominates the sport RIGHT after the Lance exposure

- His team's management have been found to be economical with the truth

- The press arent going to give him a free pass

- This is it, ill he retires

above_the_cows

I guess William Fotheringham wasn't available for the usual Guardian Sky/Froome bashing so they got someone else in.

Click, clickety, click, click, click, advertising revenue.

I'm just glad I use an adblocker and I have not succumbed to giving them four pounds a month or whatever it is they keep begging for.

I have no problem with them writing a critique of Brailsford or the wider Sky management but to hang it on Froome's Vuelta win and some really shocking 'Froome and Farah are both athletes and men' bobbins is just really, really crap.

It's like saying I'm going to win a world championships in the ITT because I see Ellen van Dijk out cycling, we shop in the big Albert Heijn in Osdorp, we both have vaginas and blonde hair and we share the name Ellen (it's my middle name granted but still, there's no smoke without fire) I mean there are lots of similarities!

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

- He came from nowhere

He didn't really though. When he changed nationality in 2008 he was being talked up in the press as Britain's future GC contender. My general feeling towards him in his early years was disappointment at another apparently overhyped talent rather than antipathy.

inseine

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

You can protest on Froome's behalf till the cows come home, but...well, there's cause and effect.

It's a tough one. Presumably we watch the sport because we want to see excitement and excellence yet when we see it we fear it's not been a achieved fairly.
I'm sure none of us would be glued to the TV for a chippers race, but on the other hand winning 2 GTs in a year raise eyebrows.
I wonder what 'just the right' level of athletic athievement would be just right?

Richmond Racer 2

inseine wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

You can protest on Froome's behalf till the cows come home, but...well, there's cause and effect.

It's a tough one. Presumably we watch the sport because we want to see excitement and excellence yet when we see it we fear it's not been a achieved fairly.
I'm sure none of us would be glued to the TV for a chippers race, but on the other hand winning 2 GTs in a year raise eyebrows.
I wonder what 'just the right' level of athletic athievement would be just right?

I dont know, I dont make the rules

Of course, you need to factor in British hypocritical puritanism, which is one of the things at work here

burnthesheep

To agree with the Guardian piece being a bit of a rag........"No one, it seems, wants to pass wind in church."

When something like that appears in an article, it's already a bit childish.

I don't think you can entirely blame the lack of popularity on just Sky. In any sport where a team begins to dominate, after a while people grow tired of the "same old". In the US, people get tired of the Yankees baseball, Patriots football, and abroad cycling fans after a while probably grow tired of such a dominant team Sky. With success the budgets balloon and acquire more and more talent. More championships are won.

It's a bit disingenuous to try to be mad about Sky with TUEs or doping when there still exists a pretty good chance that many competitors across many sports are still doing it at alarming rates. Even after the Russia scandal.

Dorset_Boy

Funny how Murray doesn't get the "assuming he's clean" comment when he wins a Grand Slam, or pretty much any other British sportsperson, especially those in sports where there is barely any testing........

Of course cycling has history, but there's little acknowledgement of things like 24/7 testing being introduced, or the number of tests that cycling carries out against other sports etc - a premiership rugby player is likely to get one test every 18 months for example.
sure testing doesn't guarantee being clean, but.....

bobmcstuff

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Ok

Lets step back a moment

The sport has a hell of a history (as does athletics, which much to people's surprise did not just disappear with Ben Johnson's pozzie and the fall of USSR and German reunification)

Let me be clear: I am unimpressed with the way BW has handled things, and I am HUGELY and even less impressed with Brailsford's handling of things. Taking 10 days to come out with a statement after the news re BW's TUEs hit the press - not good enough. Leaving riders like Thomas to bear the brunt of questioning whilst Brailsford hid on team buses during and after races is p*ss poor.


BUT its inevitable that much of the press cast a quizzical eye. Froome came from nowhere to suddenly become 'the greatest GT rider of the modern era' (as per a number of commentators), and has dominated GT racing in a way not seen since, well, Lance. Then we have Sky exposed to have been more than a little economical with the truth - and then compounded the damage in the dreadful way they handled the fall-out. Much of which can be laid at the door of Brailsford's arrogance IMO.

The time for 'innocent until proven guilty' in cycling is long over, amongst much of the media. Look, Brailsford sewed the seeds of distrust when he lined up the inaugural team to the press containing certain riders and staff whose involvement with previous teams caused a LOT of eyebrows to be raised: and hid Michael Barry in his hotel room from the media, before the start of the Giro just after Landis had named him amongst others.

You can protest on Froome's behalf till the cows come home, but...well, there's cause and effect.

Agree with the above, generally - but the questions in the Guardian article are about Wiggins, not Froome. Seems a bit lazy when they could have summarised the arguments around the drug use Froome's been variously accused of (admittedly all speculatively, as opposed to the TUEs which are at least proven), which might have been a touch more relevant. Or they could have pointed out how Froome's been open about his TUEs for a bit of balance.

RichN95.

As for Froome's 'transformation', hands up who picked out Tom Dumoulin as a Grand Tour winner before the 2015 Vuelta (co-incidentally, like Froome the Vuelta in his fourth pro season)? Why no questions to the man Rabobank rejected in favour of Jetse Bol and Marc Goos?


(I'm not accusing him of anything btw. I think Grand Tour riding has evolved towards his talents)