Oh , not again
I had to post even though I know it will all kick off again
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thibaut ... han-froome
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thibaut ... han-froome
0
Comments
-
It's all about Juice, then. :?:Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720
-
rayjay wrote:I had to post even though I know it will all kick off again
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thibaut ... han-froome
Interestingly his comparison is based on Froome 2012 vs. Horner 2013.
Froome was a domestique for Wiggins in 2012. Horner was racing to win in 2013.
Which must mean, maybe, Wiggins 2012 was faster than Horner in 2013?
Don't know. Not sure Pinot knows either.
Horner was fast but he wouldn't have beaten Froome.
Prati di Tivo at Tirreno - Adriatico proved that much. Froome was much better than Horner.
Froome is clean. Horner is .....?0 -
I have read Mr Pinot's personal opinion in this report before, old interview. Fortunately I have "certain" people on ignore so I dont have to read any conspiracy theories regarding the cast mentioned.
Take my advice, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. But why am I not surprised Mr WBT is all over this like a rash? Have a guess.0 -
I would have thought Froome would be quicker than Horner.
But Horner did strike out on his own and did look strong so I would not bet my house that Froome could have stayed with him. I was surprised by Nibali's strength on that last mountain stage.0 -
I'm not sure what conclusions can possibly be drawn from comparing different riders, playing different roles in different races across different years after racing different calendars.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:I'm not sure what conclusions can possibly be drawn from comparing different riders, playing different roles in different races across different years after racing different calendars.
In this case I would agree.
Unless you see a pattern forming. Then you start to get worried.
2014 will be interesting. If that pattern continues and more so if Horner rides the Tour.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:I'm not sure what conclusions can possibly be drawn from comparing different riders, playing different roles in different races across different years after racing different calendars.
Clearly it enables you to draw whatever conclusions you like. That's what everyone will do anyway.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:I'm not sure what conclusions can possibly be drawn from comparing different riders, playing different roles in different races across different years after racing different calendars.
In this case I would agree.
Unless you see a pattern forming. Then you start to get worried.
2014 will be interesting. If that pattern continues and more so if Horner rides the Tour.
Have you ever seen the face of Jesus on a piece of burnt toast?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:TailWindHome wrote:I'm not sure what conclusions can possibly be drawn from comparing different riders, playing different roles in different races across different years after racing different calendars.
In this case I would agree. .
Agree now but argue the opposite for 40 pages?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:rayjay wrote:I had to post even though I know it will all kick off again
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thibaut ... han-froome
Interestingly his comparison is based on Froome 2012 vs. Horner 2013.
Froome was a domestique for Wiggins in 2012. Horner was racing to win in 2013.
Which must mean, maybe, Wiggins 2012 was faster than Horner in 2013?
Don't know. Not sure Pinot knows either.
Horner was fast but he wouldn't have beaten Froome.
Prati di Tivo at Tirreno - Adriatico proved that much. Froome was much better than Horner.
Froome is clean. Horner is .....?
Maybe
I
Will
Start
Writing
All
My
Posts
Like
This
In
The
Future0 -
I did warn you. See you in 30 pages time.0
-
mike6 wrote:I did warn you. See you in 30 pages time.
You do it every time and it does make me laugh. I think on the other thread you posted FFS
I could not stop myself laughing. I know we have different view but I do enjoy your interjections
The FFS was genius.
I was just hoping we could talk about Horner and Froome and not really get in to the Sky thing.
Try and go a different road.
But my the title suggests that we will end up down that road.
But it was interesting to hear another riders view who has rode against both of them.
See you in 30 pages, cheers0 -
30 pages.
What's to debate?
Makes you go quicker than......
FACT.
(think about it.)"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"0 -
Rick is IN THE HOUSE. Mod roolz0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
What about being bald ,old and riding with an inane smile on you face all of the time?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
Nice one Mod. Bring some sanity back to this fine site.
0 -
mike6 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
Nice one Mod. Bring some sanity back to this fine site.
Can we have bans for someone who uses more than 3 emoticons in a post? It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
What about being bald ,old and riding with an inane smile on you face all of the time?
Rick's doing his best.
He doesn't deserve personal abuse.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
What about being bald ,old and riding with an inane smile on you face all of the time?
Rick's doing his best.
He doesn't deserve personal abuse. 0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Right.
Next time someone throws an accusation of doping there needs to be actual evidence of doping, as opposed to evidence of riding quickly, else I'm gonna abuse my position as mod and ban you for 3 days. possibly
I want a drugs bust, or some dodgy name linked to a doping ring, or having a great relationship with Ferrari or something. I'll take a dog's name. I'll even take a cat's name. Just give me something that isn't "chap rides really quickly in the most prestigious bike race in the world"
What about being bald ,old and riding with an inane smile on you face all of the time?
Rick's doing his best.
He doesn't deserve personal abuse.
Excellent. More of this sort of stuff and I will enjoy this place again. See, only three. 0 -
Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.0 -
Sadly, you can't control how much they think either.rayjay wrote:You can't control what people think.0 -
rayjay wrote:Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.
You can have whatever view you want. But if you make a potentially libelous accusation we need some evidence at least.
It is also for the health of the forum. Doping discussion is fine but it shouldn't be spurious, nor does the same argument need to be rehashed every week when no new evidence is found.
This is a sport were people race bicycles, so naturally there will be people who ride their bikes really really fast. That will always happen so there is no need for that to be the basis of an argument the forum has already had a week ago which even then had no evidence to support it.0 -
What Pinot actually says is Horner outclimbed Wiggins at this years Vuelta. It is a case of apples and oranges. Different course, different tactiques; Wiggins didnt need to climb faster than he did because he killed of any competition in the time trials, Horner had to do the reverse.
Yet Pinot lost minutes in the Alpes and the Pyrennees so I dont understand his assesment. I looked for his SRM data on internet but it doesnt seem to be in the public domain. Horner on the other hand has shared just about everything except for his bankaccount code.0 -
Stillnox wrote:What Pinot actually says is Horner outclimbed Wiggins at this years Vuelta. It is a case of apples and oranges. Different course, different tactiques; Wiggins didnt need to climb faster than he did because he killed of any competition in the time trials, Horner had to do the reverse.
Yet Pinot lost minutes in the Alpes and the Pyrennees so I dont understand his assesment. I looked for his SRM data on internet but it doesnt seem to be in the public domain. Horner on the other hand has shared just about everything except for his bankaccount code.
Some people on Twitter and what have you have mistaken Pinot's words. They thought he was comparing Froome 2013 to Horner 2013.
Not the case.
This is a visual comparison of Froome 2012 to Horner 2013. Appears largely based on Pinot's position in the peloton.
An overly mountainous Vuelta '13 v a rather flat Tour in 12 probably provides the answers one is looking for in this specific instance.0 -
ddraver wrote:What Pinot said is totally irrelevant qualitative guesswork, but it's the off season so the poor guy gets an off hand comment reported as news...
100% agree!
and in French nastily translated into English!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:rayjay wrote:Looks to me that its turned into the conservative old farts club.
Its a forum open to debate and people should be allowed the views.
if you don't like a thread then don't read it.
You can't control what people think.
Simple.
You can have whatever view you want. But if you make a potentially libelous accusation we need some evidence at least.
It is also for the health of the forum. Doping discussion is fine but it shouldn't be spurious, nor does the same argument need to be rehashed every week when no new evidence is found.
This is a sport were people race bicycles, so naturally there will be people who ride their bikes really really fast. That will always happen so there is no need for that to be the basis of an argument the forum has already had a week ago which even then had no evidence to support it.
HI Rick thanks for your response.
Just so we can be clear and I am no way trying to be a pain in the arse just want to know what is the limit.
So this is just for example sake nothing else.
Rodgers admitted working with Ferrari. He said it was a mistake but never doped,
Are we allowed to say we don't believe Rodgers. Are we not allowed to talk about our suspicions. Armstrong said exactly the same thing when he worked with Ferrari.
If a team has hired a Dr that has been known to have doped riders are we not allowed to be suspicious of that
team and question the use of needing such a Dr.
Again Rich I am not trying to cause a problem but I am a bit concerned over censorship and not letting people express their views. I think as long as the person is not offensive and makes it clear that those opinions are his or hers then surly BR cannot be held accountable. I could be wrong on that last bit though as I am not a lawyer.
I enjoy my time on these posts and enjoy reading opposing views.
I don't want people to be scared to express their opinion.
cheers0
This discussion has been closed.
