Froome training with Levi

philbar72 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Whatever, if Froome was looking to regain some credibility

I wasn't aware he had lost any

He's as credible as the next man in the peloton. i appreciate that says pretty much nothing.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

* Despite all the PR hype about him and Sky racing clean, and making a break with the past, Froome actually is quite happy to associate with big, bad 'old-school' dopers like Leipheimer, and so presumably feels some sort of affinity with them.

"Presumably" being the key word here. You don't know anything and are just projecting your own rather obvious opinions about the sport onto people you don't know much about. Got it.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Froome blew the whole race away, not just Contador. Whatever, I don't think that anyone is advocating an 'angry mob with torches and pitchforks'. Rather, simply maintaining a healthy degree of scepticism with regards the performances of Sky, Froome and co, just as should be maintained with regards the sport in general.

"Blew the whole race away"? Really? He put all of 30s into Quintana who had attacked long before he did! Meanwhile Contador finished behind one of his teammates, who'd been dropped before Froome attacked, after wheelsucking Nieve all the way up! If you're going to be so suspicious of Froome you are presumably keeping Quintana, Nibali and Contador under a similar microscope given recent performances, right? Right?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Perhaps in ten years time we will be in a more informed position and so able to judge Sky's performances with greater certainty, one way or the other. Who knows, perhaps we won't have to wait that long.

Given the outspoken views that Wiggins used to have about doping before he stopped 'losing an hour a day', along with his obvious 'issues' with Froome and Brailsford, the way he has been shat on and his 'fragility', who knows, if there is a story to tell (IF...) he might just implode on seeing Froome ride to another tour victory and 'drop a bombshell'. Then again, the lure of Murdoch's millions might be enough in itself to keep him loyal, which is what Brailsford just might (MIGHT...) be banking on.

OK, so in other words you're one of those people who for whatever reason don't like Froome/Sky and would be quite happy to see them caught up in some sort of doping scandal, and as such are willing to jump on any shred of "evidence" that something dodgy is going on, even to the extent of inventing ridiculous theories like that. By your logic anyone who has ever talked to an ex-doper is probably doping, at least if you don't like them.

I'm not burying my head in the sand and claiming there's zero chance Froome is doing anything wrong, but I do think it's very unlikely and that's why I'd want something a little more solid than going for a ride with someone who doped (without making any effort to hide it!) before I consider changing that view.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

An observation: scepticism is fine but probably seeks to be healthy when the majority of your contributions to Pro Race are digs at Froome and Sky.

Just trying to add a soupçon of balance to all the Sky fan worship.

Yeah good job. Pity there's a lot more blind Sky persecution than blind Sky worship on here, but whatever floats your boat...

frenchfighter wrote:

To be honest with you, Froome probably doesn't even know who Levi is, just knew he was some popular guy holding a big sportif (the sportif is very well represented). If he does know who he is then I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't know about his doping - after all Froome has admitted he knows very little about cycling's history.

Weak.

adr82 wrote:

If you're going to be so suspicious of Froome you are presumably keeping Quintana, Nibali and Contador under a similar microscope given recent performances, right? Right?

Of course! That said, given that he managed to come second in his first ever Tour ride, perhaps Quinana is just a great natural talent. After all, history has shown us that it is when riders go from being donkeys (in terms of the Tour) to being winners, that there is usually something suspicious afoot (Armstrong, Riis, Indurain etc.)

BenderRodriguez wrote:

adr82 wrote:

If you're going to be so suspicious of Froome you are presumably keeping Quintana, Nibali and Contador under a similar microscope given recent performances, right? Right?

Of course! That said, given that he managed to come second in his first ever Tour ride, perhaps Quinana is just a great natural talent. After all, history has shown us that it is when riders go from being donkeys (in terms of the Tour) to being winners, that there is usually something suspicious afoot (Armstrong, Riis, Indurain etc.)

yeah like ullrich

BenderRodriguez wrote:

adr82 wrote:

If you're going to be so suspicious of Froome you are presumably keeping Quintana, Nibali and Contador under a similar microscope given recent performances, right? Right?

Of course! That said, given that he managed to come second in his first ever Tour ride, perhaps Quinana is just a great natural talent. After all, history has shown us that it is when riders go from being donkeys (in terms of the Tour) to being winners, that there is usually something suspicious afoot (Armstrong, Riis, Indurain etc.)

Notable first GTs:
Wiggins = 123rd in Giro
Sastre = 101st in Giro
Purito = 80th in Giro

BenderRodriguez wrote:

morstar wrote:

The clean up is not yet complete, it never will be. It's called evolution and it has been happening. Do you really believe cycling today is culturally the same as pre Festina?. No, it's been changing ever since. 2008 was a step change moment in an ongoing process. Whoever claimed cycling went from dirty to clean in 4-5 years?

Festina effectively changed nothing, except perhaps amongst the French teams, with all of Armstrong's 'wins' coming in the post-Festina era.

That article was written in 2013. Just 8 years earlier, in 2005, Armstrong took his 7th Epo and blood-doping fuelled 'win', 7 years earlier, in 2006, an Epo, blood doping and testosterone fuelled Landis 'won' the Tour. Just 3 years earlier, in 2010, Contador 'won' the Tour only to have that win stripped from him after he tested positive for clenbuterol, quite possibly due to traces of the drug remaining in a transfusion. That was only 4 years ago! Wiggins won in 2012, so that brings this supposed revolutionary 'window of change' down to less than 2 years!

I don't doubt that there have been some changes, in that the doping programmes in use today are likely to be much more sophisticated and hard to detect than anything that has gone before. They might even have less of an effect than those of a few years ago but you can bet that they will still have significant effect.

Of course, if you really want to believe that perhaps the first ever truly clean winner of the Tour just happened to be a Brit, your are free to do so, just as you are free to believe in father Christmas and the 'Tooth fairy'.

The first clean rider to win the tour, will by definition only have been 12 months removed from the last dirty rider to win.

How does that fit into your argument?

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then:
Who, in your opinion is clean?

Given the history of the sport only a fool would claim to be sure in their heart that any pro rider was clean.

For what it is worth, I think that Chris Boardman was almost certainly clean. Then there was Bassons, and er... Sorry, can't think of anyone else right now.

Forget riding with Levi, half the peleton were seen riding with Tom Danielson in Utah. Adds a little perspective, no?

FJS wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

For what it is worth, I think that Chris Boardman was almost certainly clean. Then there was Bassons, and er... Sorry, can't think of anyone else right now.

You really are stuck in the 1990s, are you?

Succinctly put.

Joelsim wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then:
Who, in your opinion is clean?

Very very few of them. Just like every other endurance sport.

Yes, because everybodies natural disposition and tendency is towards cheating.

Sarcasm btw.

It only becomes endemic when it's culturally ingrained. e.g. 80's - 90's cycling. Otherwise it will follow a more normal distribution pattern. With the right culture, we'll trend more towards normality. No, we're not there yet but it's moving that way.

Joelsim wrote:

I have no doubt that the passport has curbed the excess, but the number still being caught speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to get caught.

Hamilton, Contador, Landis, Heras, Vinokourov, Kasheshkin, Millar, Di Luca, Ullrich, Kreuziger, Rebellin, Schumacher, Kohl, Jaksche, Armstrong, Colom, Scarponi, Valverde, Basso, Mancebo, Sevilla, Mosquera, Ricco, Kolobnev, Sinkewitz, Galimzyanov, Pfannberger, Schleck, Gutierrez, Rasmussen, Sayar, Ballan, Valjavec, Frei, Tiernan-Locke, Menchov, Piepoli, Caucchioli, Serrano, Santambrogio, Beltran, Astarloza, Astarloa, Dekker, Sosenka, Petacchi

Yes, it's clearly almost impossible to get caught.

Joelsim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I have no doubt that the passport has curbed the excess, but the number still being caught speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to get caught.

Hamilton, Contador, Landis, Heras, Vinokourov, Kasheshkin, Millar, Di Luca, Ullrich, Kreuziger, Rebellin, Schumacher, Kohl, Jaksche, Armstrong, Colom, Scarponi, Valverde, Basso, Mancebo, Sevilla, Mosquera, Ricco, Kolobnev, Sinkewitz, Galimzyanov, Pfannberger, Schleck, Gutierrez, Rasmussen, Sayar, Ballan, Valjavec, Frei, Tiernan-Locke, Menchov, Piepoli, Caucchioli, Serrano, Santambrogio, Beltran, Astarloza, Astarloa, Dekker, Sosenka, Petacchi

Yes, it's clearly almost impossible to get caught.

Exactly my point. Most of these were doing it for years without being caught.

How is it impossible to get caught when some many have managed it? And most of them where caught last few years. We're not in the late 90s/early 00s any more. Anti-doping has improved. You missed that era, but you've read about it, and now you're trying to transpose those times on the present.