Mean Spirited Press Response to Froome
Comments
-
Right then.
Ingle's piece is just a hatchet job. I was particularly put out by the "union flag" line, which is Guardian dog-whistle for "Daily Mail reading Brexiteer". The insinuation that someone who could enjoy Froome or Farrah winning is the sort of idiot that would destroy the country's economy because of immigrants and straight bananas is seriously grating - especially when laced with the idea that it might be hypocritical because, well, Mo's black and an immigrant and Froome's Kenyan really.
Fotheringham's isn't nearly so bad, but it's a little insidious. I think actual cycling journo's like Fotherigham are doing some arse-covering, just in case. Nobody wants to be burned with the fawned-over-dopers line again, not after Lance, and not after Brailsford so spectacularly cocked up his response to TUE-Jiffygate. They put a lot of trust in him and it wasn't repaid. Now everyone is pencilling in the potential asterisks by the results.
It's also fair to say that as cycling fans we're not going to be able to have heroes for a long time - aside from the journeymen and youngsters. Hell, even Lars Bak isn't safe any more (was recently accused of EPO use - has anyone checked on ThomThom?). Get used to it.
We can ask why other teams aren't under the same scrutiny, but the answer is really that most assume they're probably cheating - or at least never had all that mush faith that they weren't - whereas quite a few UK cycling journos and fans really did think that Sky were going to be clean (I still think they are, as a team, for a given value of clean (within the rules, if you want the specific value)).
That said, there's clearly a wild throng of tinfoil-hattists on Twitter, who make it difficult to avoid a polarised position. As Froome won the green jersey I saw a well known W/Kg poster post a quote about Armstrong not giving gifts. Dog-whistle for his followers. Today, a well known bitter Irish hack and failed racing cyclist posted a pic of Froome politely posing for a pic with well known doper and team manager Vino, with the word "Reassuring" as only comment. Yet another dog-whistle. Every tweet about Froome seems to attract comments about invisible motors. I read all these and instinctively reach for the innocent until proven guilty line, whatever personal doubts I may have about Froome's cleanliness (and I harbour doubts, as I do of 99% of the riders in the pro peloton).
Disclaimer: I'm still not a Froome fan, I still can't really warm to him, despite the piss he got thrown at him, despite winning races in front of a public that hate him and could quite feasibly injure him, despite being quite interesting TrueRacer style on a bike. As a cyclist he's very entertaining, despite his team's rep for being deadly dull. As a human being I've felt sympathy for him, and am happy to concede that most of the time he's probably quite a decent, nice, witty chap. Still doesn't do it for me though.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Above The Cows wrote: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.
As an Arsenal fan, I concur. They're never happy unless we're in crisis, and they'll happily manufacture one if we aren't.
I do like Amy Lawrence though, and some of the liveblog coverage is pretty good.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
who cares about some random idiot that somehow has a job way over his competence level0
-
Froome winning with the co-operation of three Italians, two Spaniards, a Dutchman and a German doesn't really fit into a Brexiteer angle either.No tA Doctor wrote:Right then.
Ingle's piece is just a hatchet job. I was particularly put out by the "union flag" line, which is Guardian dog-whistle for "Daily Mail reading Brexiteer". The insinuation that someone who could enjoy Froome or Farrah winning is the sort of idiot that would destroy the country's economy because of immigrants and straight bananas is seriously grating - especially when laced with the idea that it might be hypocritical because, well, Mo's black and an immigrant and Froome's Kenyan really.
(Yes, and an Essex boy)
Fotheringham wrote Wiggins's book which covered that period. It's specific arse-covering on his part.No tA Doctor wrote:Fotheringham's isn't nearly so bad, but it's a little insidious. I think actual cycling journo's like Fotherigham are doing some arse-covering, just in case. Nobody wants to be burned with the fawned-over-dopers line again, not after Lance, and not after Brailsford so spectacularly cocked up his response to TUE-Jiffygate. They put a lot of trust in him and it wasn't repaid. Now everyone is pencilling in the potential asterisks by the results.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Froome winning with the co-operation of three Italians, two Spaniards, a Dutchman and a German doesn't really fit into a Brexiteer angle either.No tA Doctor wrote:Right then.
Ingle's piece is just a hatchet job. I was particularly put out by the "union flag" line, which is Guardian dog-whistle for "Daily Mail reading Brexiteer". The insinuation that someone who could enjoy Froome or Farrah winning is the sort of idiot that would destroy the country's economy because of immigrants and straight bananas is seriously grating - especially when laced with the idea that it might be hypocritical because, well, Mo's black and an immigrant and Froome's Kenyan really.
(Yes, and an Essex boy)
Fotheringham wrote Wiggins's book which covered that period. It's specific arse-covering on his part.No tA Doctor wrote:Fotheringham's isn't nearly so bad, but it's a little insidious. I think actual cycling journo's like Fotherigham are doing some arse-covering, just in case. Nobody wants to be burned with the fawned-over-dopers line again, not after Lance, and not after Brailsford so spectacularly cocked up his response to TUE-Jiffygate. They put a lot of trust in him and it wasn't repaid. Now everyone is pencilling in the potential asterisks by the results.
Yeah, we need good old fashioned English heroes like Kevin Peitersen, Greg Rusedski, Lennox Lewis or John Barnes.0 -
To be fair, Pietersen didn't have it easy with the media. Didn't help himself, but the media didn't every really like him apart from some like Dobell.
And when I find myself ageing with enachev... Don't really give a shit about a couple of negative pieces in the press. If he's clean: sensational. If not, then the lies will be worn down with time. But till that time he's been one bloody good rider. Also, possibly stands alone as someone who can be boring and exciting at the same time.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:there's clearly a wild throng of tinfoil-hattists on Twitter, who make it difficult to avoid a polarised position.
This goes WAY beyond pro-cycling.Correlation is not causation.0 -
When the nuclear apocalypse comes three things will remain - cockroaches, Davide Rebellin's cycling career and Piers Morgan tweeting that Pietersen should be recalled by Englandwombly knees wrote:To be fair, Pietersen didn't have it easy with the media. Didn't help himself, but the media didn't every really like him apart from some like Dobell.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I find it amusing that people look down their noses at the Daily Mail whilst championing some other "impartial" newspaper. After far as I am concerned the words "gutter" and "press" describe every newpaper in the World and why I never pay them any mind, even on-line.
Unfortunately that's not the case with a lot of people who just believe what they read (especially if it confirms what they already believe).0 -
hypster wrote:I find it amusing that people look down their noses at the Daily Mail whilst championing some other "impartial" newspaper. After far as I am concerned the words "gutter" and "press" describe every newpaper in the World and why I never pay them any mind, even on-line.
Yes, but where do you get quality information about cyclists, if not via journalists?
This is one part of the internet that annoys me - Yes, everyone is entitled to post an opinion or thought, but they're not all equal. If you write for a newspaper, what you say should carry more weight than what some anonymous troll on the internet says. But they're treated as equal by some.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:there's clearly a wild throng of tinfoil-hattists on Twitter, who make it difficult to avoid a polarised position.
This goes WAY beyond pro-cycling.
Yeah, but these one's are bots.
Unlesss.... Fancy Bears, Russian influence..... Putin anti-Sky bots? :shock:Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
iainf72 wrote:hypster wrote:I find it amusing that people look down their noses at the Daily Mail whilst championing some other "impartial" newspaper. After far as I am concerned the words "gutter" and "press" describe every newpaper in the World and why I never pay them any mind, even on-line.
Yes, but where do you get quality information about cyclists, if not via journalists?
This is one part of the internet that annoys me - Yes, everyone is entitled to post an opinion or thought, but they're not all equal. If you write for a newspaper, what you say should carry more weight than what some anonymous troll on the internet says. But they're treated as equal by some.
Journalists have uncovered various wrong doing, inc Armstrong, its a bit much to tar them with the same brush as say P.Morgan...what your doing is what people who say Froome is dopin are doing...0 -
iainf72 wrote:hypster wrote:I find it amusing that people look down their noses at the Daily Mail whilst championing some other "impartial" newspaper. After far as I am concerned the words "gutter" and "press" describe every newpaper in the World and why I never pay them any mind, even on-line.
Yes, but where do you get quality information about cyclists, if not via journalists?
This is one part of the internet that annoys me - Yes, everyone is entitled to post an opinion or thought, but they're not all equal. If you write for a newspaper, what you say should carry more weight than what some anonymous troll on the internet says. But they're treated as equal by some.
Unfortunately there are just too many journalists that don't live up to that standard.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
But equally I expect them to be more informed and nuanced. Too often they just repeat what those trolls have tweeted to them.iainf72 wrote:hypster wrote:I find it amusing that people look down their noses at the Daily Mail whilst championing some other "impartial" newspaper. After far as I am concerned the words "gutter" and "press" describe every newpaper in the World and why I never pay them any mind, even on-line.
Yes, but where do you get quality information about cyclists, if not via journalists?
This is one part of the internet that annoys me - Yes, everyone is entitled to post an opinion or thought, but they're not all equal. If you write for a newspaper, what you say should carry more weight than what some anonymous troll on the internet says. But they're treated as equal by some.Twitter: @RichN950 -
iainf72 wrote:This is one part of the internet that annoys me - Yes, everyone is entitled to post an opinion or thought, but they're not all equal. If you write for a newspaper, what you say should carry more weight than what some anonymous troll on the internet says. But they're treated as equal by some.
Therein lies the danger I think. People in general would imagine if a journalist has written it in a newpaper (or book) then it carries more weight than an internet troll surely? Whether the information is correct or not or just carries innuendo about some misdoing. Most people would assume "There's no smoke without fire."0 -
Wouldn't do a worse job than half the batsmen even if he didn't turn up after selection.RichN95 wrote:
When the nuclear apocalypse comes three things will remain - cockroaches, Davide Rebellin's cycling career and Piers Morgan tweeting that Pietersen should be recalled by Englandwombly knees wrote:To be fair, Pietersen didn't have it easy with the media. Didn't help himself, but the media didn't every really like him apart from some like Dobell.
Rebellin's gone to a really tiny team this season, hasn't he? An up and comer like him should really be targeting a PCT or WT team.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:W/Kg
That's so 2012“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The BBC reports I've heard have been positive (no pun intended!), I can only assume Roan is on holiday. There was even a question (not sure who raised it) about the possibility of the treble being done. Now that really would raise eyebrows!0
-
but the way I read Sean Ingles article is that hes trying to draw a connection with doping in sport and cycling and claim somehow "Froome and Team Sky, however, get nowhere near the same level of badgering" about it as the likes of Farah do in athletics
which is patently nonsense as the article itself is the cliche of every time Froome is in the news, the same "badgering" accusations about Team Sky, he takes up nearly 5 paragraphs, which is just shy of half the whole piece, repeating them, get dragged up.
if you didnt know better you would assume its just a sports writer being asked to write an article to fill a page, generate some related hits when people google current news. :roll:0 -
RichN95 wrote:But equally I expect them to be more informed and nuanced. Too often they just repeat what those trolls have tweeted to them.
That's fair.
There is also fear of being on the wrong side of history. Being a bit snide about a cyclist is a low risk option, as you can never prove they're clean. So the irony is if you're not prepared to put your neck on the line and say xyz is 100% clean and abc is not, you're a coward.
That's one reason Ross REALLY winds me up. Won't come out and say it, just kind of beats around the edges.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Pross wrote:The BBC reports I've heard have been positive (no pun intended!), I can only assume Roan is on holiday. There was even a question (not sure who raised it) about the possibility of the treble being done. Now that really would raise eyebrows!
he retweeted Ingles piece...0 -
iainf72 wrote:RichN95 wrote:But equally I expect them to be more informed and nuanced. Too often they just repeat what those trolls have tweeted to them.
That's fair.
There is also fear of being on the wrong side of history. Being a bit snide about a cyclist is a low risk option, as you can never prove they're clean. So the irony is if you're not prepared to put your neck on the line and say xyz is 100% clean and abc is not, you're a coward.
That's one reason Ross REALLY winds me up. Won't come out and say it, just kind of beats around the edges.
Here's Ross on Sky doping:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2JkWarning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
They had Tom Fordyce on it. Unlike Roan he actually follows cycling (and was Geraint Thomas's ghostwriter)Pross wrote:The BBC reports I've heard have been positive (no pun intended!), I can only assume Roan is on holiday. There was even a question (not sure who raised it) about the possibility of the treble being done. Now that really would raise eyebrows!Twitter: @RichN950 -
I must say the idea that Froome gets less badgering than Farah doesn't sound right.
I know Farah has had all the stuff with Salazar recently but Froome's entire career (as GT leader at least) has had a fog of speculation alongside it.
Makes it sound like the guy doesn't know what he's on about right from the start.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:I must say the idea that Froome gets less badgering than Farah doesn't sound right.
In the UK I'd say that's accurate.
Mainly because I don't think the UK cares much.0 -
Mo Farah's name has much greater recognition amongst the non-cycling public than Froome's
Farah transcends his sport, whereas the eyes of most of the public Froome does not0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Mo Farah's name has much greater recognition amongst the non-cycling public than Froome's
Farah transcends his sport, whereas the eyes of most of the public Froome does not
I think Farah has had a couple of "fuzzy" tests (borderline dodgy). I can't see anything on Froome at all, other than he's got a huge natural engine, and is incredibly savvy working on his weaknesses (descending and coping with accelerations)... all seems a bit pointless to me.0 -
Dr. Ferrari also linked Farah and Froome together with regard to weight loss.
Journalism has always been pretty poor, but now it is easy to fact check stuff and discredit a journalist. Hopefully, a new generation of journalists will rise up.0 -
Ferrari links them. And Tucker links them
And infuriating tho this is for those who believe Froome to be clean as anything:
1) Ferrari is notorious, 2) Tucker gets quoted and cited by a spread of journos0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Dr. Ferrari also linked Farah and Froome together with regard to weight loss.
Journalism has always been pretty poor, but now it is easy to fact check stuff and discredit a journalist. Hopefully, a new generation of journalists will rise up.
Afraid I think its going the other way...0
