Sean Ingle's Guardian piece on Chris Froome shows a lack of understanding

[speakingtoghosts]

I found Sean Ingle's piece on Chris Froome today so frustrating. His premise of the need to confront success and his eventual conclusion about the frail state of Sky's reputation were reasonable enough. What was bizarre was his smirking and ill-founded attack on Chris Froome along the way. No-one can say that Froome is clean; Ingle is free to insinuate what he likes. But his arguments could only come from someone without even a basic understanding of the sport.

I was so irked by the silliness of it that I wrote a response to Ingle here

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear people's views.

 

[mjr]

Yeah, Ingle's article is strange. Does Farah really get more scrutiny than Team Sky? It doesn't feel like it. It feels like athletics hasn't yet had its Festina moment, let alone its Armstrong one.

Your response is a fair one. It's inevitable that today's cyclists are going to be the first to achieve things since some legendary dopers of the 90s/00s. Some may even be the first to achieve certain things since cyclists from the era when doping was punished with a ban measured in days or even a time penalty! Does this mean they're doping? Nope. Well, not all of them.

 

[speakingtoghosts]

Glad to hear you don't think I was overreacting (: Couldn't agree more that athletics has it all to come..

 

[400bhp]

Good article pal

That Guardian article is pish poor.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Nicely done.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I found Sean Ingle's piece on Chris Froome today so frustrating. His premise of the need to confront success and his eventual conclusion about the frail state of Sky's reputation were reasonable enough. What was bizarre was his smirking and ill-founded attack on Chris Froome along the way. No-one can say that Froome is clean; Ingle is free to insinuate what he likes. But his arguments could only come from someone without even a basic understanding of the sport.

I was so irked by the silliness of it that I wrote a response to Ingle here

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear people's views.

It will probably seem like I am reading your blog just to highlight bits that I think wrong*, but I rarely read blogs for the very reason that they usually contain things that I think are wrong, and you have now linked 2 of your blog pieces in 2 threads and I have given them a read.

Whilst I am not going to highlight every bit of your blog that I think is wrong, I did think the bit that stated "He has not been badgered by the British press for the simple reason that, until this summer, there has been very little interest in him or his achievements..." was worthy of highlighting as quite clearly wrong.

*I do frequently think things are wrong with no supporting evidence

 

[FishFright]

Sky are clean.
Brexit is going swimmingly.
Trump is a Genius.

All of these thing could be true.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Because of cycling's past it is too easy to be cynical about any winner. But in all sports an exceptional athlete does come along from time to time, and Froome may well be one of them. There is no evidence to link him to doping that has emerged so far and he is intelligent enough to realise that if improved testing ten or so years down the line shows that he has taken something illegal not only will his reputation be in tatters but he will possibly face financial ruin, as Armstrong still might do.

So at the moment I'll believe, but I reserve the right to change my mind should events show otherwise.