Pro-cycling thread

She wouldn’t write an article about it if she didn’t want to send a message, and her message to the public was clearly “this stinks”.

I don’t know her personally but I found her quite bitter in other topics as well, like that recent “cycling fashion” roasting article for Rouleur.

Ah. So the message is in the writing of the article-about a huge topical event in one of the seasons three grand tours following six months of speculation and waiting about Froome's adverse finding, UKAD investigations etc-not in what she actually said.

Perhaps its because I'm from the same town, but what you see as bitterness I take as quite characteristic black humour.

Unless just by discussing it and refusing to rule it out she's making an accusation?

Feeling this

You are right I think

I’m not familiar but I have heard mentions of her in connection to Obree in unsavoury terms regarding doping. Anyone know more?

Oh

The Le Groupement story is described in Obree’s autobiography, “Flying Scotsman”, where he recounts how Robert Millar outlined the £2000 fee that would be deducted from his salary to pay for the “medical assistance” provided by the team. Obree informed Millar that he didn’t require this service.
(just to pre-empt some of the replies that were posted last time I mentioned Millar, I am referring to Robert, who tested positive for testosterone in the ’92 Vuelta, not David, who confessed to EPO use in 2004)

Oh see, she’s a doping expert, and therefore not fit to ask questions

Can we quit the ad hominem and ‘whataboutism’ shite plz?

Wonderful! Who is it?

I honestly wasn’t aware and am extremely disappointed to find it out. And I question why the fuck the media continues to give dopers exposure, and lets them pass judgement on today’s sport.

And that applies to them all. Just fuck off.

Edit: the dopers just fuck off, not anyone here ;)

Rudi Altig of course!

„Wir sind keine Sportler, wir sind Profis."

would be great if there was someone to rightfully cast stones... but I’m afraid almost everyone in the pro sports who’s not on the actual bikes have a little sin on their hands

Genau

And therein lies the problem, and the dissonance when you hear these cheaters tell us how Froome was cheating.

Just we have firmly moved from presumed innocent to the other one now. Froome has to prove he is clean and it well known you can’t prove a negative. So instead we get this doping circle jerk

York/Millar publicly admitted doping years ago in a very roundabout way and explained why and what the background was in an article at a time when not many were for fessing up... http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/robert-millar-silence-wont-stop-the-doping-stories/

...was pretty well received:
https://twitter.com/kathylemond/status/260760717614010368

Doesn't make it right but I don't see it as totally invalidating anything she has to say on the subject now either.

I didn’t know for some reason, hadn’t bothered checking so assumed better. And it is very disappointing.

As far as validation is concerned, she can have her opinion and CN can give her a platform, but like Landis I’m not sure I’m interested. A lot of ex-dopers operate on the ‘we had to dope to race’ and so apply that to modern riders.

Michael Rasmussen thinks the Secret Pro is right, so not all ex dopers/experts agree on the level of unbelievability

Meanwhile, there are rumours of ASO seeking ways to prevent Froome from riding the Tour

I didn’t know for some reason, hadn’t bothered checking so assumed better. And it is very disappointing.

Aside from the public confession, and the fact she rode for TVM, who by all accounts were juiced like lab rats, both public record... yet you care so much now, after years of reading her articles and presumably finding them of merit until the day she dared broach the subject of the credibility of Froome's ride on stage 19 and concluded with a "I genuinely don't know"?

I think a lot of people who respond this way would be theologians in another era, mumbling catchetisms whilst deliberating on the merit of rounding up disbelievers and burning them lest God be angry and give everyone the pox.

Taking it to the next level now, I'm happy I knew when to stop :)

meh. I just don't understand the how people can simultaneously not care enough to think about things or do some reading but care so much they have to decry their huge personal disappointment that the aforementioned sporting figure they'd never bothered to read about has doped.

catchetisms

Catch E.T.-isms? :)

He's not the messiah, just a very naughty alien.

Calm your tits, I hadn't realised expressing disappointment in finding out she cheated would be so insulting to you.

I don't claim to know everything about every rider and every team, I have read some of her articles until I decided to try to avoid CN like the plague. I am fairly consistent with my regard for ex-dopers: Landis, Virenque, Millar and Armstrong etc and I generally don't like them getting too much exposure in the cycling press, sorry about that.

York said "I genuinely don't know"

"I genuinely don't know. But he looks like a cheating scum weasel, doesn't he? And his team definitely seem like a bunch of cheating scum weasels. In fact, they're a bunch of cheating scum weasels who smell bad. I wouldn't be surprised if the organisers of the Tour de France wouldn't want a bunch of stinky cheating scum weasels at their race. And as a cheating scum weasel myself, I know what I'm talking about. But I genuinely don't know."

As you said, context.

Where've I taken it personally exactly?

I'm spelling it out that you're taking it personally, whilst totally contradicting your supposed interest in the person you're being so disappointed by.

It's like someone's Great Aunt Fanny dying having never met them then walking around wearing black and throwing ashes over their tear-streaked face for weeks.