Mean Spirited Press Response to Froome

Richmond Racer 2

You're talking in an echo chamber here, Rich. Most posters would appear to agree with you

But you are not a journo, nor are you a commissioning editor

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

You're talking in an echo chamber here, Rich. Most posters would appear to agree with you

But you are not a journo, nor are you a commissioning editor

True. Like how the only commission Kimmage got for two years was from the Daily Mail to p1ss on Murdoch's chips in 2012

salsiccia1

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

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

He's a victim of circumstance (if not guilty of anything, and I'm presuming not at this point), but there's no such thing as circumstance in the black and white world of the fourth estate in pursuit of dirt. Point 1 has been well documented, points 2 & 3 aren't his fault, but all of them lead directly to points 4 & 5 due to history and the hunger for scandal.

Cycling will, for a very long time at least, have to pay for the sins of the father.

tangled_metal

So anyone know why sports journos aren't taking the same approach with Nadal's performance of late? Isn't there supposed to be a doping problem combined with an inadequate anti doping program and lack of transparency in the program in tennis?

What about that 197th ranked, unseeded player who won the women's final? Came from nowhere apparently.

That's all irrelevant. Since the lowlights of cycling's doping past it'll always be used by sports journalists to sell papers. Add in the British like the lucky underdog and not the dominant winner. I wonder how long before they turn on Murray. I mean he's been top 5 for how many years? How long has his brother been top ranked doubles player? I personally don't think he is doping but there's never any talk about him in that way.

AFAIK cycling and distance running are endurance sports which tend to mean athletes reaching their prime later on than sprint disciplines. Tennis often sees young winners, cycling and distance running rarely does I believe. With Froome he came from an emerging part of the world for competitive road racing. Colombians have been in the tour for a long time achieving but how many from Africa? I'd bet that's some disadvantage to overcome compared to Italian, Dutch or French pro cyclist hopefuls.

It's easy to target Froome I think. It's easy and lazy. Not unheard of in journalism is it!

salsiccia1

Tangled Metal wrote:

That's all irrelevant. Since the lowlights of cycling's doping past it'll always be used by sports journalists to sell papers. Add in the British like the lucky underdog and not the dominant winner. I wonder how long before they turn on Murray. I mean he's been top 5 for how many years? How long has his brother been top ranked doubles player? I personally don't think he is doping but there's never any talk about him in that way.

That'll be the same day that hell freezes over. Some cows (and free court/pitchside tickets & pressers) are too sacred, especially to Middle England.

mamba80

The doping advantages in Tennis arent the same as in an endurance sport esp a GT.
Sports like Tennis, Rugby etc have a high degree of skill in them, i could take drugs and improve my racing, no amount of dope would improve my tennis, folk inc journalists know this.

Froome will never be accepted in the UK as he is nt seen as British. Farrah might train in the states but he comes back here and has kids living in the UK.

rick_chasey

For those getting personal about Sean Ingle; he's alright.

He's knowledgeable on athletics and a lot of the more minor sports and therefore he's a lot more open minded than most UK journos on the topic of doping.

He's had decent input on the football podcast over the years. He seems a genuine sports fan.

salsiccia1

mamba80 wrote:

The doping advantages in Tennis arent the same as in an endurance sport esp a GT.
Sports like Tennis, Rugby etc have a high degree of skill in them, i could take drugs and improve my racing, no amount of dope would improve my tennis, folk inc journalists know this.

I'm presuming this is satire

mfin

It's a couple of articles, for general reading, not for cycling fans. It reflects the mistrust of Sky that Richmond Racer has pointed out. This mistrust is bound to be much heavier with the weight of cycling's incredible history of doping behind it.

It does not point a finger at Froome.

Some fans might not like the association even if there is no pointing finger, finding it distasteful, but is there damage being done, not really.

Perhaps some fans feel they might need smoke blown up the ass of their hero in the hope that other people might join in on their positive feelings about him? Sounds like that to me more than it does of being defensive about him. If they need wonderful glowing articles written about him to glow in their feelings fair enough.

As for the timing of the articles, well, it's great timing, they are both in the news.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

The doping advantages in Tennis arent the same as in an endurance sport esp a GT.
Sports like Tennis, Rugby etc have a high degree of skill in them, i could take drugs and improve my racing, no amount of dope would improve my tennis, folk inc journalists know this.

But you may be able to play five sets of crap tennis rather than three.

The advantage isn't necessarily about raising a skill level, but maintaining that level for longer and more often in the face of fatigue.

Dorset_Boy

Men's tennis matches at the Slams regularly last over 4 hours, often in 40+ degree heat courtside. Course there's a huge potential for doping to be beneficial. There isn't much tail off in performance either - how often do you hear commentators suggesting player A is cream crackered and therefore making errors?

If Ingle is 'alright' he's showing ignorance about when endurance athletes typically hit their peak, ignorance about Froome, and deliberately trying to coat him in brown stuff through his snide insinuations. His article is neither fair, truthful or balanced as far as Froome goes. I wouldn't call him alright based on that article, I'm refer to him as something dogs leave behind....

mfin

mamba80 wrote:

The doping advantages in Tennis arent the same as in an endurance sport esp a GT.
Sports like Tennis, Rugby etc have a high degree of skill in them, i could take drugs and improve my racing, no amount of dope would improve my tennis, folk inc journalists know this.

Froome will never be accepted in the UK as he is nt seen as British. Farrah might train in the states but he comes back here and has kids living in the UK.

You've never got tired playing tennis?

There's not much skill in Rugby*, the main one is taking drugs.

*Shut up Rugby fans, Rugby is crap.

Richmond Racer 2

Jesus, not the skill defence again :roll:

FocusZing

RichN95 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

The doping advantages in Tennis arent the same as in an endurance sport esp a GT.
Sports like Tennis, Rugby etc have a high degree of skill in them, i could take drugs and improve my racing, no amount of dope would improve my tennis, folk inc journalists know this.

But you may be able to play five sets of crap tennis rather than three.

The advantage isn't necessarily about raising a skill level, but maintaining that level for longer and more often in the face of fatigue.

Yeah I think any of us could have beat Tim Henman with a couple of coffees behind us. Hell my gran...

Lanterne_Rogue

Rick Chasey wrote:

For those getting personal about Sean Ingle; he's alright.

He's knowledgeable on athletics and a lot of the more minor sports and therefore he's a lot more open minded than most UK journos on the topic of doping.

He's had decent input on the football podcast over the years. He seems a genuine sports fan.

I think he shows his athletics bias when claiming Farah is 'badgered' more about the topic. It's admittedly crude, but searching for mo+Farah+doping gets fewer results than the same for Chris Froome.

At least one of his points - Sky being strong - is also addressed in a more generous article by Fotheringham about Froome, Sky essentially sending a whole extra first team to the Vuelta. Also features badgering of a different sort thanks to some quote from Hinault.

salsiccia1

Fotheringham's article was alright actually, and I was one to give him stick over his complaints about Sky not doing the usual press things during the Tour.

Sean Ingle's article isn't particularly charitable but I wouldn't expect it to be.

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

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)

I'm not sure inviting a comparison of Dumoulin's results prior to his 'breakthrough' with Froome's prior to his helps your argument here.

PhilipPirrip

It's click bait by someone with targets to meet.

blazing_saddles

Rick Chasey wrote:

For those getting personal about Sean Ingle; he's alright.

He's knowledgeable on athletics and a lot of the more minor sports and therefore he's a lot more open minded than most UK journos on the topic of doping.

He's had decent input on the football podcast over the years. He seems a genuine sports fan.

Doesn't make him any use at writing about cycling.

Another of his factually "light" pieces was this, in case anyone has forgotten:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

Richmond Racer 2

Just a couple of other points to chuck into the discussion

Festering Girl is an occasional contributor to the Graun. Began under the CommentISFree guise (aka non-paid), dont know the score now

the oh-so-pithy-she's-so-clever-doncha-know Marina Hyde writes for the Graun. She has tweeted her recommendation to follow Tucker 'if you care about the credibility of sport'

So. Yeah.

Richmond Racer 2

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

For those getting personal about Sean Ingle; he's alright.

He's knowledgeable on athletics and a lot of the more minor sports and therefore he's a lot more open minded than most UK journos on the topic of doping.

He's had decent input on the football podcast over the years. He seems a genuine sports fan.

Doesn't make him any use at writing about cycling.

Another of his factually "light" pieces was this, in case anyone has forgotten:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... -of-sexism

Ingle once published a piece calling upon Holy David to go something proactive with anti-doping bodies if he really cared about showing his penitence (or whatever). I had to point out to him on the Twatters that Millar was in fact on WADA's Athletes Commission, having been nominated in the late 00s as the first sanctioned athlete to join the Commission

These guys do fook all in the way of research before pumping out this stuff, and subbies have been ditched to save costs

slowbike

I'd warm to Froome a bit more if he didn't look so bluddy clean during the interviews ... ffs - the chap has just slogged out for hours on end and other than looking a little warm, he looks immaculate .. give him a shower, suit, shirt & tie and put him in the boardroom ...
The least the guy could do is look a little unshaven & rough around the edges - like he's had to work for this and hasn't had time for personal grooming ...
Ok - He prboably has a personal groomer ... do they have to wipe his arse?!

mfin

Slowbike wrote:

Ok - He prboably has a personal groomer ... do they have to wipe his ars*?!

Probably, seeing as Sky are bound to have their very own Gillian McKeith collecting his pellets under lab conditions for analysis and nutritional tuning, contributing to the overall big(job)-data.

tim000

Slowbike wrote:

I'd warm to Froome a bit more if he didn't look so bluddy clean during the interviews ... ffs - the chap has just slogged out for hours on end and other than looking a little warm, he looks immaculate .. give him a shower, suit, shirt & tie and put him in the boardroom ...
The least the guy could do is look a little unshaven & rough around the edges - like he's had to work for this and hasn't had time for personal grooming ...
Ok - He prboably has a personal groomer ... do they have to wipe his ars*?!

domoulin could do with one .

Richmond Racer 2

mfin wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Ok - He prboably has a personal groomer ... do they have to wipe his ars*?!

Probably, seeing as Sky are bound to have their very own Gillian McKeith collecting his pellets under lab conditions for analysis and nutritional tuning, contributing to the overall big(job)-data.

You joke, but....

mfin

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Ok - He prboably has a personal groomer ... do they have to wipe his ars*?!

Probably, seeing as Sky are bound to have their very own Gillian McKeith collecting his pellets under lab conditions for analysis and nutritional tuning, contributing to the overall big(job)-data.

You joke, but....

Naa, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's true

(I never joke )

above_the_cows

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Just a couple of other points to chuck into the discussion

Festering Girl is an occasional contributor to the Graun. Began under the CommentISFree guise (aka non-paid), dont know the score now

the oh-so-pithy-she's-so-clever-doncha-know Marina Hyde writes for the Graun. She has tweeted her recommendation to follow Tucker 'if you care about the credibility of sport'

So. Yeah.

The Guardian sports coverage is pretty bobbins it has to be said.

r0bh

I used to like Sean Ingle's writing but lost all respect for him when he was crestfallen that the fancy bear TUE leaks for Mo Farah contained nothing incriminating at all. He's had essentially the same innuendo laden piece on Farah published multiple times now, sounds like he's done it again but with a few Froome/Sky references lobbed in too

RichN95.

I think there's a problem with some journalists (in all fields) that they think that only negative stories are 'proper journalism'

dabber

I always think of journalists in a similar way to the way I think of politicians....
if the politician's mouth is moving they're probably lying... if the journalist's fingers are moving over their keyboard, well they're probably ????