Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote:bipedal wrote:Surely the most parsimonious explanation of Froome's dominance over Contador in 2013 is simply that the convicted doper (i.e. Contador pre-2012) isn't doping anymore
PS anyone labouring under any illusions that AC didn't dope his way to victory in 2007 should read Leipheimer's account of Johan's expectations of how Discovery Channel professionals should be preparing: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... tml?pg=all
I was looking for something interesting in that but was left disappointed. Four points.
1. Contador came into force in 2007, the same year many pros said they stopped doping. Which makes it more of a level playing field enabling natural talent to shine.
2. The quote provided shows there was no blood doping provided by Bruyneel and his team, just that he wouldn`t mind if it was done outside of his involvement. Within teams with institutionalized doping, not everyone is privy to it (read USADAs docs to understand this).
3. Contador didn`t go in as the leader so wouldn`t have been the one prepped with dope to the max, but as he showed his talent in the more even playing field eclipsing the boys around him in the team, they made him ride. There is one attack in particular where he makes Levi look like an amateur. If you want the video for this I will provide it.
4. He won that Tour by a WHOPPING 23 seconds over `clean as bleach` Cadel Evans.
Your point 1 is a joke, right? Or did I imagine all the doping positives at the 2007 tour? Some homework for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_ ... _de_France
Contador robbed Cadel...0 -
By track, I meant athletics - track & field, not cycling.Daz555 wrote:
Track might be cheap in cycling equipment terms but you need a velodrome to start with - and I'm going to have a wild stab here that they are generally found in rich white nations, and Scotland.RichN95 wrote:With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons.
Twitter: @RichN950 -
Daz555 wrote:
Track might be cheap in cycling equipment terms but you need a velodrome to start with - and I'm going to have a wild stab here that they are generally found in rich white nations, and Scotland.RichN95 wrote:With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons.
Yeah, we are all multi-millionaires in Wales.
All I can say is Rich, if my family can be so successful on the track, it must be cheap, too. :oops:
The one person to benefit from all of this is Vayer.
He has become the adopted son of the internet doping inquisition, replacing David Walsh, who has
recently become possessed of the devil.
Fact is, in scientific circles, his "calculations" are considered to be at the very top end, pessimistic,
with important variables completely ignored.
It's a pity that the cycling media, what little there is, seem happy to act as his soap box."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Daz555 wrote:
Track might be cheap in cycling equipment terms but you need a velodrome to start with - and I'm going to have a wild stab here that they are generally found in rich white nations, and Scotland.RichN95 wrote:With track there's more equal opportunity though (as it's a relatively cheap sport). So the lack of diversity it's because of socio-economic reasons.
Not quite the case. Velodromes in the UK are expensive because track is raced at the top level in the winter, which means we need indoor velodromes. Most countries can stick a couple of hundred metres of banked Tarmac or concrete down and not have to worry about the weather so much.
There are more velodromes in Argentina than the UK!0 -
I know Abergavenny is poor because they haven't relaid that astroturf since they built it.Blazing Saddles wrote:Yeah, we are all multi-millionaires in Wales.
All I can say is Rich, if my family can be so successful on the track, it must be cheap, too. :oops:
As mention before track=athletics (I came over all American)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Two points here. For the past two decades the training of cyclists has largely been driven by drug dealers who were primarily concerned with selling their drugs. That's not to say that they knew nothing, but they always promoted the drug option. There is a genuine case to be argued that legitimate scientific progress in cycling has been hampered and that there is certainly a lot of legitimate development that has been overlooked.
I don't completely agree with this. Hamilton talked at length about all of the non-doping gains he made (nutrition, weight etc.) and I suspect that Ferrari would be one of the finest coaches of clean athletes (as well as doped ones). The doping "progress" was heavily linked to understanding the body and how it recovers. Any legitimate method that helped this was also very useful as it would make the drugs even more successful.
Also, I think a lot of people confuse doping with taking the easy option e.g. one guy trains hard and the other dopes. A large part of doping is giving athletes the ability to train even harder by allowing them to do more and recover better - there is no less pain or effort. So when someone says "I have trained really hard" as a doping defence, it sort of misses the point of doping.0 -
RichN95 wrote:jamie1012 wrote:Every sport will enjoy time improvements amongst clean riders over time. Cycling, like track, has had such enormous gains from such widespread doping that I think that the best times from the elite doped riders are untouchable by anybody but the rarest freaks of nature (among whom, by all accounts, we can count LeMond). If a rider without the legendary physical capacities of LeMond were to start putting out LeMond-esque times, we would be entitled to sneer until provided with an explanation.
Basically, it's conceivable that a talented and clean rider might beat times by a doped donkey from days gone by, but he is never going to beat the times of a GT winner from the EPO era.
Two points here. For the past two decades the training of cyclists has largely been driven by drug dealers who were primarily concerned with selling their drugs. That's not to say that they knew nothing, but they always promoted the drug option. There is a genuine case to be argued that legitimate scientific progress in cycling has been hampered and that there is certainly a lot of legitimate development that has been overlooked.
Secondly, we now have a much better understanding of what makes a champion. This means that we are more able to spot them. For example I bet there's barely a man over 2m tall who hasn't been asked to play basketball at some time - because that is an easily spotted attribute. It's not all that matters of course, but it's easy to spot in a member of the general public. However, the attributes that determine a cyclist are not have generally only been tested after they progress a long way in the sport. That can change.
Tim Kerrison made your first point recently, going as far as to say that training methods of the last 20 years were 'retarded' as a result of the use of drugs as a focus towards performance.0 -
That's not quite what I meant. What I meant is that for the likes of Ferrari doping was a given - no thought was given to how you might train or race without the doping. So all the training plans were based around the doping and even if they were understanding more about the body, the solution would often be doping based. So understanding of how to do it clean, while not stagnated, was hampered.TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:Two points here. For the past two decades the training of cyclists has largely been driven by drug dealers who were primarily concerned with selling their drugs. That's not to say that they knew nothing, but they always promoted the drug option. There is a genuine case to be argued that legitimate scientific progress in cycling has been hampered and that there is certainly a lot of legitimate development that has been overlooked.
I don't completely agree with this. Hamilton talked at length about all of the non-doping gains he made (nutrition, weight etc.) and I suspect that Ferrari would be one of the finest coaches of clean athletes (as well as doped ones). The doping "progress" was heavily linked to understanding the body and how it recovers. Any legitimate method that helped this was also very useful as it would make the drugs even more successful.
Also, I think a lot of people confuse doping with taking the easy option e.g. one guy trains hard and the other dopes. A large part of doping is giving athletes the ability to train even harder by allowing them to do more and recover better - there is no less pain or effort. So when someone says "I have trained really hard" as a doping defence, it sort of misses the point of doping.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Out of interest, how many of the other teams train as a team, with trainers in attendance pushing them throughout?
It is far easier to not push yourself that extra 3% if you are just out riding with your teammates than if you are out with your teammates and coaches in cars and on mopeds really driving you to the limit.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Out of interest, how many of the other teams train as a team, with trainers in attendance pushing them throughout?
It is far easier to not push yourself that extra 3% if you are just out riding with your teammates than if you are out with your teammates and coaches in cars and on mopeds really driving you to the limit.
I think most of the teams having training camps (at least the bigger ones) - I guess its the frequency and effectiveness of them that matters though?
and maybe a few just use them to get PR shots?!
You also tend to get riders living near each other an training in groups.. not necessarily from the same team.
For example.. Henao, Uran and another colombian not of team sky live together I think. (I want to say Betancur but i'm not 100%)0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:For example.. Henao, Uran and another colombian not of team sky live together I think. (I want to say Betancur but i'm not 100%)
Quintana.Correlation is not causation.0 -
calvjones wrote:OnYourRight wrote:
Yes, but massive oxygen-boosting doping methods were subsequently invented, and you can’t uninvent them. So Sky is really asking us to believe that not only are they clean, but so are all the other main contenders (because marginal gains presumably can’t beat doping).RichN95 wrote:The thing is if you are old enough, like me, it also looks reminiscent of LeMond or Delgado, and no doubt those older than me like Hinault and Fignon. Clean (or pre-EPO) and dirty cycling don't really look much different.
I think it’s just about possible that all the big Grand Tour GC contenders today are clean, but I can’t say I’d be shocked if some of them or all of them turned out to be lying, doping, so and sos.
Regardless, I think Sky could do a lot more to gain our trust. Brailsford is evasive in press conferences, refuses to answer questions, refuses to release data, hires dodgy people, and in the past has defended dodgy people, i.e. he acts exactly like the old guard, all the while blustering about Sky being transparent and different from the rest. That rings hollow.
Maybe the Sky promise to be open and different was misguided and unworkable from the start. If so, it ought to be formally abandoned.
A few years ago when Rob Hayles’s haematocrit breached the 50 % rule, Brailsford said a few interesting things in defending him, among them the following as reported here:
“And if he is genuinely innocent there may be something we are doing. We really push the boundaries in terms of nutrition like huge doses of fish oils, cherry juices and anti-oxidants. We train very differently from every other nation.”
See also the intriguing last paragraph of that article.
Depending on your viewpoint, those things sound like a carefully laid defence for any eventual doping violation, or a man speaking his mind about genuinely avant-garde training methods.
Foe those who can't be arsed clicking, the last para:
"Having minutely examined training methods and test results during a season in which they have undertaken an unprecedented workload, followed by a longer taper than usual, Brailsford believes Great Britain have unearthed a physiological reaction in the body called super-compensation that will consistently push haematocrit levels beyond the 50 per cent level which is currently considered acceptable."
Has he mentioned this again since 2008? 'Super compensation' would be huge news to the sports science community if true?
[Whistles....]
Actually supercompensation of hematocrit levels is old news in sports science.Google it and you will see. That a team as advanced as Sky have developed a method of doing it consistently wouldn't be surprising given the amount of hands-on research they do on exactly that sort of thing.0 -
Errrm.....anyone want to change their opinion after that display?0
-
great win by ricardo ricco!'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'0
-
Milton50 wrote:Errrm.....anyone want to change their opinion after that display?
I was thinking about this on the stage... Contador has absolutely duffed a whole host of guys who have been proven cheats down the years... Scarponi, Armstrong, F. Schleck, Rasmussen etc etc. So given how poor he has been in this Tour am I supposed to believe that a) He's packed it in despite his main rivals being juiced or b) He's stilla s juiced as ever and everyone else has got on some better gear only he hasn't heard of to get up to his level.
Is putting 90s into Laurens Ten Dam really the absolute maximum benefit of doping?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
1:30 faster than Armstrong's time apparently.0
-
ThomThom wrote:1:30 faster than Armstrong's time apparently.
2002 or 2009?
It's a meaningless comparison, we don't know the wind speed, direction etc etc etc."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Oleg Tinkov is kicking off on twitter again!0
-
-
What are you saying then?0
-
Think that was aimed at Milton, Thom
Edit : beaten ^^^0 -
Seems to me that "Errrm.....anyone want to change their opinion after that display?" implies people might want to change their mind to point to Froome doping due to his good performance today but apparently it doesn't?0
-
It all looked ok to me. Stage won by seconds, not mins, on a 20k mountain. Winner and second place looked like death at the finish. No one looked super human like in the 2000s. Quintana looked easy, but he must have a great bluff face, would hate to play him at cards.
A lot of very tired riders in the peloton, as you would expect after two weeks of the Tour.
Looks cleaner every year.
Getting back to Sky. I dont believe there is systemic doping in that team. It is a team led by the management and coaches of the GB track system. This system had no contact with the old European cycling system that embraced doping from almost day one in pro racing.
Peter Keen, probably, started this whole "Marginal gains" thing off with Mr Boardman and the work has been carried on and modified over at least three Olympics. Britain has emerged from the backwoods, as a cycling team, in that time to become the most successful track team in the world, using this system.
Most of the Brits currently in pro racing came through this track system and by all accounts if you are not a medal contender you are dropped, very quickly. This leads to a "winning" culture. Combine this with personal coaching, almost unique among pro teams for some strange reason, and you have the situation we have now. A British team,Sky, and British riders doing great things in a sport that we only expect the traditional cycling nations to excell in.
I will enjoy it while it lasts cos you can bet the other teams/nations will catch up with the method and system.0
This discussion has been closed.
