Froome Voooom

[Stretch]

Definitely brought up a negative feeling for me too...

 

WIN AT ALL COST

 

He was just interviewed - mentioned a mechanical with the car earlier..so they could not get gels earlier...little bit convenient though....

[raptor]

Porte is for froome like froome was for Wiggins Last year, glad to see they got a 20sec penalty for again feeding in Last 20km. Marginal gains even If you have to cheat to do it.

[Lucky Luke.]

But sky have had bad days! They've been taken apart a few times now... But for the most part they've had a clear strategy.

 

Chris has shown he's a great climber and great time trialist. But not as good a sprinter. So they've cycled to the strengths... That's how you win.

 

Yes, Chris is winning because the other GC contenders waste too much energy contesting the sprints. No man! You are giving his trade secrets away. Why not just paste his power data here for all to see?

[Garfield2010]

Thats really funny Luke!! Bwahahahahaha!!

[SURFER]

Interesting analogy

 

What if I'm on my 12th wife and all the 11 previous ones cheated and came home late. What must I think when no. 12 starts coming home late also?

 

Then you are the problem, not your 12 wifes

[fandacious]

Then you are the problem, not your 12 wifes

 

so the tour is the problem, not the cheating riders

[eeeek]

so the tour is the problem, not the cheating riders

 

I assume that you are only being facetious, but "many a true word spoken in jest" comes to mind.

Edited July 19, 2013 by eeeek

[fandacious]

I assume that you are only being facetious, but "many a true word spoken in jest" comes to mind.

 

half and half. Every single previously busted rider has said its impossible to win the tour clean. So in a sense, yes, you have to dope to win the tour - there is no other way.

 

That said, it grates my gears that every year the riders treat us like we're idiots, and we're supposed to believe that THIS time, they're clean, and its a new era. All the evils of the past are forgotten and we're now using science instead of drugs.

[nathrix]

half and half. Every single previously busted rider has said its impossible to win the tour clean. So in a sense, yes, you have to dope to win the tour - there is no other way.

 

That said, it grates my gears that every year the riders treat us like we're idiots, and we're supposed to believe that THIS time, they're clean, and its a new era. All the evils of the past are forgotten and we're now using science instead of drugs.

 

Hasn't the playing field been leveled now that the majority of riders don't dope and the truly talented and hard working cyclist will be at the top winning races? Why would you dope now knowing that in 5 years or so's time they will catch you out, what have you got to gain from that, except the current wealth and the fame? I would not do that if I know they would catch me in the future or that I will have to explain myself, as per the busted riders recently. Does not make sense to me what you are stating. You must be bloody stupid to be doping now, using prohibited substances that are not traceable currently, but could be traced in future when they test your stored urine and what not.

[fandacious]

Hasn't the playing field been leveled now that the majority of riders don't dope and the truly talented and hard working cyclist will be at the top winning races? Why would you dope now knowing that in 5 years or so's time they will catch you out, what have you got to gain from that, except the current wealth and the fame? I would not do that if I know they would catch me in the future or that I will have to explain myself, as per the busted riders recently. Does not make sense to me what you are stating. You must be bloody stupid to be doping now, using prohibited substances that are not traceable currently, but could be traced in future when they test your stored urine and what not.

 

 

why would you dope now?

 

money. regardless of what the ramifications are later down the line, the nett sum is that you will make more money if you win by cheating, than if you dont win at all.

 

Also, theres a chance you might get away with it...

[eeeek]

half and half. Every single previously busted rider has said its impossible to win the tour clean. So in a sense, yes, you have to dope to win the tour - there is no other way.

 

That said, it grates my gears that every year the riders treat us like we're idiots, and we're supposed to believe that THIS time, they're clean, and its a new era. All the evils of the past are forgotten and we're now using science instead of drugs.

 

I meant that the Tour/grand tours created the culture, the more prize money, coverage, sponsorship the greater the incentive to dope, ergo the more dopers, the more difficult to win without doping, the more difficult to maintain your place on a team if unwilling to dope, the greater the imperative to dope just to stay in the sport... In the era of amateur sport there were fewer dopers, fewer ways of doping. If you create the incentive, the onus is on you to create the fair sporting environment and enforce it. There is too much (natural) testosterone in a peleton of 200 riders to expect anything short of atavism if not effectively policed.

I'm not condoning doping, but I am more than mildly amused at the pretence that we're all so shocked that they dope when we, in effect, created the fertile breeding ground for it, and then held them to a higher moral standard than that to which we even hold ourselves.

Edited July 19, 2013 by eeeek

[SwissVan]

half and half. Every single previously busted rider has said its impossible to win the tour clean. So in a sense, yes, you have to dope to win the tour - there is no other way.

 

That said, it grates my gears that every year the riders treat us like we're idiots, and we're supposed to believe that THIS time, they're clean, and its a new era. All the evils of the past are forgotten and we're now using science instead of drugs.

 

Excuse me for butting in BUT something sucks with your statemunt above

 

How is it you believe what all the previous dopers say now?

 

Don't you think they were maybe referring to their specific era (pre biological passport etc...) or just trying to justify what they did?

[fandacious]

Excuse me for butting in BUT something sucks with your statemunt above

 

How is it you believe what all the previous dopers say now?

 

Don't you think they were maybe referring to their specific era (pre biological passport etc...) or just trying to justify what they did?

 

who was the last clean winner?

[JA-Q001]

well

 

2007 - Contador

2008 - Carlos Sastre

2009 - Contador

2010 - Contador, but he had bad steak, so no count, givin to baby Schleck

2011 - Cadel Evens

2012 - Bradley Wiggins

 

In all those, only one to test positive was Contador, and many feel that that positive was not even eligable, but still, the last 6 years, only one positive.

['Dale]

well

 

2007 - Contador

2008 - Carlos Sastre

2009 - Contador

2010 - Contador, but he had bad steak, so no count, givin to baby Schleck

2011 - Cadel Evens

2012 - Bradley Wiggins

 

In all those, only one to test positive was Contador, and many feel that that positive was not even eligable, but still, the last 6 years, only one positive.

 

Yip.

There's a shift.

[SwissVan]

who was the last clean winner?

 

This isn't the question only thread, you are allowed to answer questions without asking a question. Please answer the question:

 

"How is it you believe what all the previous dopers say now"?

 

In response to yours, I would say Cuddles or even lambtjop (Wiggins).