Tyson Fury deserves to win Sports Personality OTY

[Bensonrecon]

Every rider in the Tour de France has missed drug tests?

No but there's an "air of suspicion" to use your own words over the entire sport due to the number of riders that fail or come out and admit to cheating after the fact. Froome was implicated too, to the point that he had piss thrown at him mid race and was booed on route for a bunch of stages. Has he tested positive? No, neither has Farah and that's my point.

As for missing tests Ohuruogu missed 3 and got banned for it but no one is rushing to call her a drug cheat either. He's made blood tests public, UKAD, USADA and WADA have Salazar under a magnifying glass so a doping violation is even less likely and the leaked IAAF tests had Farah in the clear as well. There is literally no reason to discount Farah as he's not been found guilty of anything.

 

[Geyzer Soze]

I don't know diddly-shit about boxing & honestly never heard of Tyson Fury before now, but surely personal views, however abhorrent they may be considered by some, are surely irrelevant sporting recognition? It's not a popularity contest, should the PL trophy be awarded on the basis of what a nice bunch of lads the 'winning' team are?

 

[Mullers]

No but there's an "air of suspicion" to use your own words over the entire sport due to the number of riders that fail or come out and admit to cheating after the fact. Froome was implicated too, to the point that he had piss thrown at him mid race and was booed on route for a bunch of stages. Has he tested positive? No, neither has Farah and that's my point.

As for missing tests Ohuruogu missed 3 and got banned for it but no one is rushing to call her a drug cheat either. He's made blood tests public, UKAD, USADA and WADA have Salazar under a magnifying glass so a doping violation is even less likely and the leaked IAAF tests had Farah in the clear as well. There is literally no reason to discount Farah as he's not been found guilty of anything.

There is an air of suspicion over the whole of athletics too. I've been reading that Foome has missed two drugs tests one of them was this year. Then there is Ross Tucker, a South African sports scientist and French physiologist Pierre Sallet who doubt Foome as well. Any time an athlete misses a drug test there will be questions asked and rightly so.

 

[nightgoat]

No but there's an "air of suspicion" to use your own words over the entire sport due to the number of riders that fail or come out and admit to cheating after the fact. Froome was implicated too, to the point that he had piss thrown at him mid race and was booed on route for a bunch of stages. Has he tested positive? No, neither has Farah and that's my point.

As for missing tests Ohuruogu missed 3 and got banned for it but no one is rushing to call her a drug cheat either. He's made blood tests public, UKAD, USADA and WADA have Salazar under a magnifying glass so a doping violation is even less likely and the leaked IAAF tests had Farah in the clear as well. There is literally no reason to discount Farah as he's not been found guilty of anything.

An independent committee declared Ohuruogo was not guilty of any missing those tests deliberately - one of them was because her training venue had been double booked for a school sports day so she had to find an alternative venue, sod's law the testers turn up to the sports day and she's not there. She'd passed tests days earlier and after that one as well. Pretty much any suggestion that she was a cheat has been widely refuted (although there was one idiot on here who insisted she was during the Olympics, despite all the evidence to suggest otherwise.) So whilst missing a test can raise suspicion, it doesn't automatically make that person a drugs cheat. Rio Ferdinand wasn't.

There is an air of suspicion over the whole of athletics too. I've been reading that Foome has missed two drugs tests one of them was this year. Then there is Ross Tucker, a South African sports scientist and French physiologist Pierre Sallet who doubt Foome as well. Any time an athlete misses a drug test there will be questions asked and rightly so.

One of the tests Froome missed was because he'd gone away for a weekend with his fiancee, the testers turned up at his hotel at 6am and the hotel staff refused to let them go up to his room. He had no idea they were there.

The 'suspicion' about Froome at this year's Tour was a load of shit. It was solely based on his performance on one stage of a 21 stage race where anyone with even the slightest interest in or knowledge of cycling could see why he won so emphatically. The stage in question was the day after the first rest day. By 'rest day', it just means there's no racing, but the riders will still ride for three or four hours because if they don't the lack of exercise and getting out of the race routine can have an adverse affect on riders. Team Sky had specifically targeted that stage as the parcours suited Froome and they knew that if any of their rival teams took it lightly they could gain big amounts of time.

Of his three main rivals, Alberto Contador wasn't as fresh going in to the race having completed (and won) the Giro d'Italia a little over a month earlier, where he also dislocated his shoulder. Contador had already lost time to Froome even on some of the small climbs in the first week. The defending champion Vincenzo Nibali was on poor form going in to the race, having only won one race by that point of the season and had taken a stronger team to the Giro. Neither Contador nor Nibali could keep the pace in the first week, and by this point were a minute and two minutes down respectively. His other rival, Nairo Quintana's team for some inexplicable reason set the pace and rode on the front for about 70km or so before they'd even got to the final climb, so come the last 10km Quintana only had one team mate left with him, whereas Froome had three.

Please don't cite Sallet to question Froome. Sallet is full of shit. He's the one who went on French TV claiming Froome's power output on the climb was 'abnormally high' and tried to back it up with his own estimation which was proven to be ridiculously far off his actual output when Team Sky released Froome's data a day or two later. Of course this didn't stop the French press, nor did they relent later on in the race when Quintana and Nibali started taking time out of Froome, nor did they raise their eyebrows when it was revealed that the French rider Thibaut Pinot had posted higher power outputs on similar climbs in training rides.

 

[Mullers]

One of the tests Froome missed was because he'd gone away for a weekend with his fiancee, the testers turned up at his hotel at 6am and the hotel staff refused to let them go up to his room. He had no idea they were there.

The 'suspicion' about Froome at this year's Tour was a load of shit. It was solely based on his performance on one stage of a 21 stage race where anyone with even the slightest interest in or knowledge of cycling could see why he won so emphatically. The stage in question was the day after the first rest day. By 'rest day', it just means there's no racing, but the riders will still ride for three or four hours because if they don't the lack of exercise and getting out of the race routine can have an adverse affect on riders. Team Sky had specifically targeted that stage as the parcours suited Froome and they knew that if any of their rival teams took it lightly they could gain big amounts of time.

Of his three main rivals, Alberto Contador wasn't as fresh going in to the race having completed (and won) the Giro d'Italia a little over a month earlier, where he also dislocated his shoulder. Contador had already lost time to Froome even on some of the small climbs in the first week. The defending champion Vincenzo Nibali was on poor form going in to the race, having only won one race by that point of the season and had taken a stronger team to the Giro. Neither Contador nor Nibali could keep the pace in the first week, and by this point were a minute and two minutes down respectively. His other rival, Nairo Quintana's team for some inexplicable reason set the pace and rode on the front for about 70km or so before they'd even got to the final climb, so come the last 10km Quintana only had one team mate left with him, whereas Froome had three.

Please don't cite Sallet to question Froome. Sallet is full of shit. He's the one who went on French TV claiming Froome's power output on the climb was 'abnormally high' and tried to back it up with his own estimation which was proven to be ridiculously far off his actual output when Team Sky released Froome's data a day or two later. Of course this didn't stop the French press, nor did they relent later on in the race when Quintana and Nibali started taking time out of Froome, nor did they raise their eyebrows when it was revealed that the French rider Thibaut Pinot had posted higher power outputs on similar climbs in training rides.

Whatever the reason if a drug test is missed, people are going to be suspicious especially if you're a top athlete doing superb times. How about Antoine Vayer? He also suspicious about Froome's times.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-does-chris-froome-have-so-many-doubters

 

[nightgoat]

Whatever the reason if a drug test is missed, people are going to be suspicious especially if you're a top athlete doing superb times. How about Antoine Vayer? He also suspicious about Froome's times.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/why-does-chris-froome-have-so-many-doubters

There really wasn't anything that remarkable about Froome's ride up La Pierre-Saint-Martin, though. He attacked with 6km to go when his last remaining rival was isolated (having already had his teammates unnecessarily ride themselves into the ground) and after the steepest part of the climb was over. It's not like he's dropping everyone else and riding solo for 40km like Armstrong used to.

Vayer is another one who makes a whole load of claims based on data that he just wouldn't have access to. And like I said, Team Sky released a bunch of data during the Tour (no other teams did this) which categorically refuted the outlandish claims being made against Froome. An awful lot of people within cycling don't take Vayer seriously. And why would they when he claimed he wanted to put together a side-by-side comparison of Froome and Armstrong riding Ventoux, completely ignoring any kind of variables such as weather, training, technological advances in the last 10 years (many of which have been pioneered by Team Sky) and things as blindingly obvious as the actual race itself.

Perhaps if we let a French rider win the Tour next year then this kind of shit might die down a bit. But the French are incredibly bitter about British cycling success.

 

[Shea]

I'd personally say becoming heavyweight champion of the world is probably enough to deserve to be named sports personality of the year - although Haye never won the award when he became heavyweight champion (albeit a less established one)

The UK has had several newly crown boxing world champs this year so perhaps it's a measure of the sports wider appeal that none of those have even been given a mention while Ennis/Farah/Rutherford all made the list via track and field (seems athletics is favoured)

I can see arguments for Hamilton due to his F1 win and Murray carrying team GB to a Davis cup win (for the first time in forever) deserving the award and I think the latter is a strong shout for the award

Personally, being a long standing boxing fan, I'd be incline to say Fury's achievement is the greatest of the year and if that is what the award is based on (which it should be) I'd give it to him, regardless of how boring the fight was the achievement was immense.

That said I can't see him being awarded it now his crazy religious rantings have been made public/high profile. He clearly recognises he was foolish to air his views in public now (hence his rather pitiful formal retraction and "I have many homosexual friends" comment) but I think he will miss out on this award - which I think his achievement merits - because of his mouth.

I suppose though a tennis fan would argue Murray helping team GB to their first Davis cup is just as big if not bigger than Fury winning one boxing match in the year. When Lewis won the award he had unified the title against Holyfield.

 

[Hoops]

I'd personally say becoming heavyweight champion of the world is probably enough to deserve to be named sports personality of the year - although Haye never won the award when he became heavyweight champion (albeit a less established one)

The UK has had several newly crown boxing world champs this year so perhaps it's a measure of the sports wider appeal that none of those have even been given a mention while Ennis/Farah/Rutherford all made the list via track and field (seems athletics is favoured)

I can see arguments for Hamilton due to his F1 win and Murray carrying team GB to a Davis cup win (for the first time in forever) deserving the award and I think the latter is a strong shout for the award

Personally, being a long standing boxing fan, I'd be incline to say Fury's achievement is the greatest of the year and if that is what the award is based on (which it should be) I'd give it to him, regardless of how boring the fight was the achievement was immense.

That said I can't see him being awarded it now his crazy religious rantings have been made public/high profile. He clearly recognises he was foolish to air his views in public now (hence his rather pitiful formal retraction and "I have many homosexual friends" comment) but I think he will miss out on this award - which I think his achievement merits - because of his mouth.

I suppose though a tennis fan would argue Murray helping team GB to their first Davis cup is just as big if not bigger than Fury winning one boxing match in the year. When Lewis won the award he had unified the title against Holyfield.

I actually think Tyson will win by a protest vote. All the comments below articles in the newspapers have people applauding him as a breath of fresh air for saying what he thinks.

 

[Mustard]

I actually think Tyson will win by a protest vote. All the comments below articles in the newspapers have people applauding him as a breath of fresh air for saying what he thinks.

Blokes a twat.

Haye would beat him. Possibly the worst heavyweight champ ever. Certainly the worst fight to win the belt as well.

 

[Shea]

I actually think Tyson will win by a protest vote. All the comments below articles in the newspapers have people applauding him as a breath of fresh air for saying what he thinks.

I doubt it but I guess it could happen in a "make rage against the machine xmas number one ahead of the x factor" sort of way

I like Tyson, I've always found his crazy antics and mouth entertaining in what has been otherwise a rather boring HW division

That said I think he was foolish for his bible comments and I think it's wrong for someone in his position to be biggoted about a group of people in the same way it is for people to be racist. The stupid thing is I don't even think he means/meant what he was saying, I just think he likes to say controversial things because it's the way he self promotes (and to be fair it has worked very well for him throughout his professional career)

It's obvious that in-spite of his bravado about being dictated to by no man and saying what he wants so like it or lump it that he does indeed acknowledge what he said was wrong and to his credit he retracted it formally (even if it was in a sort of "I'm not racist I work with loads of blacks" kinda way)

What I think is most important is this - He said what he said, that is done, anyone who has watched him for any length of time knows he shouts his mouth off in order to make hype and be controversial. I don't think he should be taken too seriously, it's his persona like a WWE wrestler at the end of the day.

He's retracted his comments and made it clear he does not wish to stand by homophobia - how long should he really be berated for the same thing? If he was still shouting off about it then by all means he should be condemned but he hasn't. He's issued a formal statement about it and stated he has nothing against homosexuals therefore as far as I'm concerned the matter should be put to bed and forgotten

 

[Hoops]

Blokes a twat.

Haye would beat him. Possibly the worst heavyweight champ ever. Certainly the worst fight to win the belt as well.

lol not you again. David Haye! Please! Mate, you havnt a clue about boxing.

 

[Mustard]

lol not you again. David Haye! Please! Mate, you havnt a clue about boxing.

Not compared to you Angelo obviously.

Tyson is ordinary. Very ordinary. Just got lucky on the night to see a man age in front of him. Useless boxer and a twat.

Does amuse me the folk making excuses for him though.

 

[Hoops]

Not compared to you Angelo obviously.

Tyson is ordinary. Very ordinary. Just got lucky on the night to see a man age in front of him. Useless boxer and a twat.

Does amuse me the folk making excuses for him though.

Lol, when was the last time you watched a fight? Eubank v Benn?

 

[Mustard]

Lol, when was the last time you watched a fight? Eubank v Benn?

Nah, it was Curry v Honeyghan

 

[Hoops]

Nah, it was Curry v Honeyghan

More likely Hulk Hogan v Ultimate Warrior!

 

[Mustard]

More likely Hulk Hogan v Ultimate Warrior!

Lol. You are amusing.

 

[Mullers]

There really wasn't anything that remarkable about Froome's ride up La Pierre-Saint-Martin, though. He attacked with 6km to go when his last remaining rival was isolated (having already had his teammates unnecessarily ride themselves into the ground) and after the steepest part of the climb was over. It's not like he's dropping everyone else and riding solo for 40km like Armstrong used to.

Vayer is another one who makes a whole load of claims based on data that he just wouldn't have access to. And like I said, Team Sky released a bunch of data during the Tour (no other teams did this) which categorically refuted the outlandish claims being made against Froome. An awful lot of people within cycling don't take Vayer seriously. And why would they when he claimed he wanted to put together a side-by-side comparison of Froome and Armstrong riding Ventoux, completely ignoring any kind of variables such as weather, training, technological advances in the last 10 years (many of which have been pioneered by Team Sky) and things as blindingly obvious as the actual race itself.

Perhaps if we let a French rider win the Tour next year then this kind of shit might die down a bit. But the French are incredibly bitter about British cycling success.

You can't just put the criticism down to the French being bitter that is to simplistic, I mentioned in a previous post the South African sports scientist Ross Tucker, he wrote this piece with Jonathan Dugas. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/how-to-fight-doping-in-sports.html?_r=0
Vayer claims to have inside information and the data released by Team Sky has not going far enough they haven't published his powerful profile. There is also the fact that he was allowed to take a steroid based medication and won the race.

Because of Armstrong, it's really up to team sky and Froome to go out of their way to prove their innocence.

 

[Mullers]

I doubt it but I guess it could happen in a "make rage against the machine xmas number one ahead of the x factor" sort of way

I like Tyson, I've always found his crazy antics and mouth entertaining in what has been otherwise a rather boring HW division

That said I think he was foolish for his bible comments and I think it's wrong for someone in his position to be biggoted about a group of people in the same way it is for people to be racist. The stupid thing is I don't even think he means/meant what he was saying, I just think he likes to say controversial things because it's the way he self promotes (and to be fair it has worked very well for him throughout his professional career)

It's obvious that in-spite of his bravado about being dictated to by no man and saying what he wants so like it or lump it that he does indeed acknowledge what he said was wrong and to his credit he retracted it formally (even if it was in a sort of "I'm not racist I work with loads of blacks" kinda way)

What I think is most important is this - He said what he said, that is done, anyone who has watched him for any length of time knows he shouts his mouth off in order to make hype and be controversial. I don't think he should be taken too seriously, it's his persona like a WWE wrestler at the end of the day.

He's retracted his comments and made it clear he does not wish to stand by homophobia - how long should he really be berated for the same thing? If he was still shouting off about it then by all means he should be condemned but he hasn't. He's issued a formal statement about it and stated he has nothing against homosexuals therefore as far as I'm concerned the matter should be put to bed and forgotten

You don't believe him do you? From what I understand his uncle has said that he's happy to apologise for comparing homosexuals to pedos. But Tyson's done it again on twitter.
https://twitter.com/tyson_fury
If he is retracting his comments then I think even less of him because he is covering up what he believes. There is no place for homosexuality in Christianity, this is a fact. he's saying publicly what I have heard Christians say privately, I can't think of any religion where homosexuality is accepted. It's a lot better that these thoughts are out in the open for people to see and debate it, than trying to suppress it or water it down or pretend that it's not they believe.

 

[nightgoat]

You can't just put the criticism down to the French being bitter that is to simplistic, I mentioned in a previous post the South African sports scientist Ross Tucker, he wrote this piece with Jonathan Dugas. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/how-to-fight-doping-in-sports.html?_r=0
Vayer claims to have inside information and the data released by Team Sky has not going far enough they haven't published his powerful profile. There is also the fact that he was allowed to take a steroid based medication and won the race.

Because of Armstrong, it's really up to team sky and Froome to go out of their way to prove their innocence.

It's not all of it, but it is a significant part. It's only Froome who gets this level of scrutiny. When Nibali won in 2014 there was no constant, every day questions about doping. But there was in 2013 when Froome won before. Like there was in 2012 when Wiggins won. But there wasn't in 2011 when Cadel Evans won. I think you can see the pattern. There was no barrage of media questions at Astana's highly suspicious performances in the Giro d'Italia this year when they rode on the front for large parts of just about every stage but still had four or five riders left towards the end when every other contender had one or no teammates left. And that's from a team who had their racing license suspended at the start of the season for having three riders test positive within the space of a few weeks. This is the team managed by Alexander Vinokourov, a convicted doper, who have had doping scandals every year since 2007. Previous employees include Lance Armstrong, Alberto Contador and a whole host of other former Discovery Channel riders.

Whenever Quintana, or Nibali, or Aru wins a stage or a race they get praised for their talent. Whenever Contador wins it's 'the old Contador is back' (the two time convicted doper). Whenever Froome wins, there are questions, and allegations. And yet he has done more than any of those to combat doping. Froome was the only current cyclist who took part in the Cycling Independent Reform Commission's investigation. It was Froome who called for WADA to carry out more dope tests during teams' training camps.

The medication Froome takes is for asthma, and the steroid in question, Salbutamol has been clinically tested and proven to have no significant effect on endurance performance, even in high doses. So it's not like he's winning the Tour de France because he's conveniently asthmatic.

Going back to the French, they haven't had a Tour winner since Hinault in '85. For them, a French Tour winner would be like Andy Murray winning Wimbledon x100. Yet they've seen a new team from a nation with precious little cycling history come along and win it three times in four years. Remember how they kicked up a fuss about GB winning everything on the track in 2012, to the point Dave Brailsford told them their performance was down to having rounder wheels than everyone else (made by a French manufacturer, no less.)

And you're right, thanks to Armstrong there will be a level of suspicion for a long time. But when that suspicion is only applied to certain teams and certain riders you can only conclude that there is an agenda.

 

[dagraham]

I don't know diddly-shit about boxing & honestly never heard of Tyson Fury before now, but surely personal views, however abhorrent they may be considered by some, are surely irrelevant sporting recognition? It's not a popularity contest, should the PL trophy be awarded on the basis of what a nice bunch of lads the 'winning' team are?

I'm afraid that's exactly what it is and why the BBC Sports Personality of the Year is such a load of bollocks. Dull as anything too. Nearly as dull as boxing these days.

I also don't know why Fury is getting such bad press. Boxer in "being a bit of a **** shocker"!

That's one of the reason Lewis stood out (as well as his supreme boxing ability). He didn't appear to be an uncouth arsehole.

I used to love watching boxing, but it's been shit for years. I'm sure those who are really into it will say that if you dig a bit deeper there are great fights out there. Fact is though that for too long 90% of the big fights are dull as anything and you have to pay through the nose for it too.