UK Postal
Comments
-
Yes, I agree, although if you're only looking at differential performance, you'd find a uniformly doped peloton entirely unsuspicious. But once you've raised your eyebrows, do you examine the data, check the ascent times and so on, or do you just say this person's winning a lot, therefore doping!? The figures are out there for anyone who's genuinely interested and not just trolling, and when the general opinion is along the lines of "we can't say for certain, but these outputs all look like they're within expected physiological parameters" you'd hope the doping chat would either calm down or there'd be some additional reason for suspicion beyond success.LangerDan wrote:Spiny_Norman wrote:
This. Very much this. Ascent times are up, sustained W/kg outputs have dropped to within widely-accepted physiological limits, but obviously anyone who does well must be doping, right? :roll:RichN95 wrote:P_Tucker wrote:If anyone looks at the performance of Sky through the lens of the last 20 years and doesn't conclude doping, then there's something wrong with them. Why would it be any different this time?
Because an examination of the numbers - power outputs, climb times etc - shows that it is different. Wiggins and Froome's numbers are those of also rans in the Armstrong years.
Forget all the lies, corruption, deaths, blood bags, massive steaks and everything else - the thing that annoys me most about the EPO era is that anyone who does at all well is instantly suspected - no, accused - of doping, and are expected to either prove a negative for the satisfaction of a few Internet Forum People or else just accept that the sport's got history so they should put up with being called a cheat based on gossip and innuendo.
The problem is that rider (and team) performances are not seen in isolation. If we were to stand at the side of a climb and watch a single rider go past at say a VAM of 1500 or 1600 m/hour, we'd be unlikely to be able to tell the difference between the two climbing rates. However if the rider goes past @ 1600 m/hour when everyone else around him is doing is 1500 m/hr, the differential is obvious, even if the faster performance is still legit. And its the differential performance that raised eyebrows.
Wiggo wasn't exactly on message the other day, and it probably hasn't helped, but I can understand why he feels that way. Sky have done everything you could possibly expect them to do in order to prove they're clean, but once you're under suspicion, however ridiculous the reasons are, there's nothing you can do to change that. Anything you could possibly say has already been said by someone who's turned out to be a notorious doper. Even if he started losing, he'd be accused of winding down the doping regime because his passport values were too wild, or getting a bad batch of whatever he's meant to be on, or quitting while he's ahead. He literally can't win.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
My views (for what they are worth):
I can't prove anything to you without your permission and cooperation and vice versa.
But the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim
So in the context of this debate no one can prove to anyone else that any team are cheating or are clean. But the race only works if you assume innocence without some proof of guilt.
Unfortunately in this sport history explains why skeptism is reasonably justified.
The difference between reasoned skeptism, trolling and poisonous libel is down to a choice of language and the interpretation of the listener.
My interpretation of the question posed to Wiggin's was a classic journalist's provocative accusation, veiled as a.... "others are saying" ..... "there is no truth in the rumour" type question. These are classic smear tactics designed to cast doubt/make accusations whilst avoiding libel/slander charges or a 'poke in the eye'! Was Wiggins response measured, PR savvy, of course not. Was he seriously pissed off - you bet.
Does being seriously pissed off infer any greater likelyhood of guilt than a more measured response. Absolutely NOT.
If you disagree - your wrong! :x0 -
rjgr wrote:My views (for what they are worth):
I can't prove anything to you without your permission and cooperation and vice versa.
But the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim
So in the context of this debate no one can prove to anyone else that any team are cheating or are clean. But the race only works if you assume innocence without some proof of guilt.
Unfortunately in this sport history explains why skeptism is reasonably justified.
The difference between reasoned skeptism, trolling and poisonous libel is down to a choice of language and the interpretation of the listener.
My interpretation of the question posed to Wiggin's was a classic journalist's provocative accusation, veiled as a.... "others are saying" ..... "there is no truth in the rumour" type question. These are classic smear tactics designed to cast doubt/make accusations whilst avoiding libel/slander charges or a 'poke in the eye'! Was Wiggins response measured, PR savvy, of course not. Was he seriously pissed off - you bet.
Does being seriously pissed off infer any greater likelyhood of guilt than a more measured response. Absolutely NOT.
If you disagree - your wrong! :x
How do you really feel?
0 -
The Sky - US Postal comparison interests me, but mainly from a tactical perspective.
Let's assume USPS were doped, and so were the competition (leaders at least)... let's also believe that the 2012 race is largely clean. With these provisos both races represent a level playing field, albeit at different levels, and therefore it is interesting that one team can seemingly boss the event.
Why are other teams not employing the same tactics? I guess Liquigas try it... is it a case that Sky (as USPS before them) have the best manpower available?
As Vaughters tweeted during the Dauphine:
"not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy."0 -
-
Ta.
Also, what is nic_77 getting at? Lotsa munney = gonna win big races?
(not trying to be a smartarse, i've just starting closely following the pro race since the USADA filing/TdF, so not fully au fait with all the previous races).0 -
Yes basically - Sky can afford to pay better riders to work as Domestiques for Wiggo - That IS a similarity with USPS.
Garmin, for example, simply do not have the budget to have all those riders on the one team.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
nic_77 wrote:The Sky - US Postal comparison interests me, but mainly from a tactical perspective.
Let's assume USPS were doped, and so were the competition (leaders at least)... let's also believe that the 2012 race is largely clean. With these provisos both races represent a level playing field, albeit at different levels, and therefore it is interesting that one team can seemingly boss the event.
Why are other teams not employing the same tactics? I guess Liquigas try it... is it a case that Sky (as USPS before them) have the best manpower available?
As Vaughters tweeted during the Dauphine:
"not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy."
Assume ?? is the pope a catholic :roll:0 -
I knowGazzetta67 wrote:nic_77 wrote:The Sky - US Postal comparison interests me, but mainly from a tactical perspective.
Let's assume USPS were doped, and so were the competition (leaders at least)... let's also believe that the 2012 race is largely clean. With these provisos both races represent a level playing field, albeit at different levels, and therefore it is interesting that one team can seemingly boss the event.
Why are other teams not employing the same tactics? I guess Liquigas try it... is it a case that Sky (as USPS before them) have the best manpower available?
As Vaughters tweeted during the Dauphine:
"not sure why ppl are surprised by sky:a few €800k guys pulling a €900k guy, who then pulls for a €1.3m guy,who helps a €2m guy."
Assume ?? is the pope a catholic :roll: ...and OJ Simpson has big hands 0 -
coriordan wrote:Ta.
Also, what is nic_77 getting at? Lotsa munney = gonna win big races?
(not trying to be a smartarse, i've just starting closely following the pro race since the USADA filing/TdF, so not fully au fait with all the previous races).
That's my point I guess...
The comparison between USPS and Sky could be perfectly reasonable, without being sinister - i.e. the TEAM with the biggest budget can crush the opposition. Only the biological landscape is different between now and the USPS days, I hope (and largely think).
You probably only need to manage a few other variables, such as ensuring you have a single goal (ask Cav) and perfect preparation.0 -
It was fairly controlled by Sky today but certainly not reminiscent of the USPS days with GC contenders being allowed to make small gains and the break only losing a few seconds on an HC climb (they even extended their lead on the first half of the climb after being pulled back slightly before it started).0
-
If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....0 -
Ah I suppose you can back this up with fact ?MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....
I know Laura and have seen her ride since she was about 13 and she has always been very talented and class rider. I also can say the same for a few others and seen them progress steadily with age, Same can be said for Danni King, Sarah Storey, and many others, also the men with G, kennaugh, Tennant, Rowe, Mould, Harrison etc. and if you followed the progress of european u23 and junior track recently you will see some further talenetd and hard working kids klike Lucy Garner, Amy roberts and Ellinor Barker who whon gold and will come through senior ranks soon, then you get the usual forum twats who come on and say they dope. Unlesss you have facts to proove it then shut the xxxx up.
As usual people who dont follow the sport close and see these kids work and train over years, then when they start to get results you all pop up and say "oh yes all done by doping".0 -
ddraver wrote:erm... whooooooooosh!
0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
Ah I suppose you can back this up with fact ?MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....
I know Laura and have seen her ride since she was about 13 and she has always been very talented and class rider. I also can say the same for a few others and seen them progress steadily with age, Same can be said for Danni King, Sarah Storey, and many others, also the men with G, kennaugh, Tennant, Rowe, Mould, Harrison etc. and if you followed the progress of european u23 and junior track recently you will see some further talenetd and hard working kids klike Lucy Garner, Amy roberts and Ellinor Barker who whon gold and will come through senior ranks soon, then you get the usual forum twats who come on and say they dope. Unlesss you have facts to proove it then shut the xxxx up.
As usual people who dont follow the sport close and see these kids work and train over years, then when they start to get results you all pop up and say "oh yes all done by doping".
I think you took that post too seriously Dai!!!0 -
oldwelshman - I know HGH gives dopers big hands/chins, but what form of doping gives people big eyes?
Andy0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
Ah I suppose you can back this up with fact ?MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....
I know Laura and have seen her ride since she was about 13 and she has always been very talented and class rider. I also can say the same for a few others and seen them progress steadily with age, Same can be said for Danni King, Sarah Storey, and many others, also the men with G, kennaugh, Tennant, Rowe, Mould, Harrison etc. and if you followed the progress of european u23 and junior track recently you will see some further talenetd and hard working kids klike Lucy Garner, Amy roberts and Ellinor Barker who whon gold and will come through senior ranks soon, then you get the usual forum twats who come on and say they dope. Unlesss you have facts to proove it then shut the xxxx up.
As usual people who dont follow the sport close and see these kids work and train over years, then when they start to get results you all pop up and say "oh yes all done by doping".
Thanks to everyone who pointed out I wasn't being serious. 0 -
Ooh, tetchy ...
Whoever does the communications training at British Cycling needs to start doping to get some results ... Seems to be an issue from the top down ...0 -
Not really. Just lots of crap on the forums recently. Not sure doping is really a good topic to joke about as theres enough doubters on here as it is.
Maybe I need some EPO but if yo ulisten to some on here becuase I replied like I did thats evidence I dope ? Ah now I am contradicitng myself joking ! 0 -
MrTapir wrote:oldwelshman wrote:
Ah I suppose you can back this up with fact ?MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....
I know Laura and have seen her ride since she was about 13 and she has always been very talented and class rider. I also can say the same for a few others and seen them progress steadily with age, Same can be said for Danni King, Sarah Storey, and many others, also the men with G, kennaugh, Tennant, Rowe, Mould, Harrison etc. and if you followed the progress of european u23 and junior track recently you will see some further talenetd and hard working kids klike Lucy Garner, Amy roberts and Ellinor Barker who whon gold and will come through senior ranks soon, then you get the usual forum twats who come on and say they dope. Unlesss you have facts to proove it then shut the xxxx up.
As usual people who dont follow the sport close and see these kids work and train over years, then when they start to get results you all pop up and say "oh yes all done by doping".
Thanks to everyone who pointed out I wasn't being serious.
Also, how did 'twats' get through the swearotron filter?0 -
Twats is Rick's favourite phrase. True fact.0
-
-
oldwelshman wrote:
Ah I suppose you can back this up with fact ?MrTapir wrote:TailWindHome wrote:If 'we' suspect Sky of doping do we also tar the British Olympic team with the same brush?
Definitely, why do you think Laura Trott has such big eyes? Its not because she's cute....
I know Laura and have seen her ride since she was about 13 and she has always been very talented and class rider. I also can say the same for a few others and seen them progress steadily with age, Same can be said for Danni King, Sarah Storey, and many others, also the men with G, kennaugh, Tennant, Rowe, Mould, Harrison etc. and if you followed the progress of european u23 and junior track recently you will see some further talenetd and hard working kids klike Lucy Garner, Amy roberts and Ellinor Barker who whon gold and will come through senior ranks soon, then you get the usual forum twats who come on and say they dope. Unlesss you have facts to proove it then shut the xxxx up.
As usual people who dont follow the sport close and see these kids work and train over years, then when they start to get results you all pop up and say "oh yes all done by doping".
I went to the same school as Dani King, she's a local girl done good so I defintely wouldnt implicate her in a doping scandal.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Fucks
Works too.
Ban him!!!0 -
what about cunts?
Edit: nope obviously that doesnt work!0
