Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

mike6

This is a load of tosh, isnt it???? "Froomes performance just wasnt believable today" o.k then, whos was? 2nd place, 3d place, 4th, you tell us, in your wisdom, how far down the finishing order we have to go before we believe in the athlete?

above_the_cows

hipshot wrote:

Not claiming evidence.

Just my opinion nothing more.

(It was right about Lance btw)

Except Chris Froome is not Lance Armstrong.

Apparently a virgin once gave birth to a baby. Doesn't mean every other baby is born to a virgin.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

2013: 242km at 42km/h av
2000: 142km at 35km/h av

2000: Three cat 2 climbs & one cat 4 in the run up:

Sometimes, it's a good thing that I'm so long in the tooth.
Anybody else remember the etape from that year?
The wind was so strong, riders could hardly make headway.
Temperature 2C.
There were fears for the stage, two days later.

As for Frenchie's average speed, today, I hope he realises that was not down to boring Sky,
but panache infused Movistar, hammering on the front for over 100kms, with the tailwind.

alanjay

Frenchie mainly recognises doping infused panache unfortunately, sadly sans drugs the heroes just can't cut it anymore.

above_the_cows

Daniel Friebe ‏@friebos 55m

Someone stop the comparison madness. Please.

Daniel Lloyd ‏@daniellloyd1 47m

@friebos I like it. I saved £110 on my car insurance.

ha ha ha ha ha ha

mike6

Exactly. Who can say with any certainty how the stage was ridden in 2000. They could have ridden piano for 120k then smashed it up the Ventoux.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

ddraver

Daniel Lloyd ‏@daniellloyd1
Maybe what athletics fans should do, is look at times over a certain distance, maybe 100m or so, and compare to Ben Johnson's times.

above_the_cows

Dan Lloyd is on FIRE tonight!

Paul 8v

mike6 wrote:

This is a load of tosh, isnt it???? "Froomes performance just wasnt believable today" o.k then, whos was? 2nd place, 3d place, 4th, you tell us, in your wisdom, how far down the finishing order we have to go before we believe in the athlete?

This ^^^^

All these 'experts' getting hysterical over Froome's ride, was Quintana's OK as he finished a bit further back, or Contadors, where was the cut off?

Yellow Peril

I was disappointed to see today's Spoiler thread chewed up by Froome doping allegations following his win. I thought we'd agreed to keep it to this thread? I know it is an emotive and passionate sport but perhaps if we can't follow some simple rules the mods should dish out some warnings.

ddraver

Yellow Peril wrote:

I was disappointed to see today's Spoiler thread chewed up by Froome doping allegations following his win. I thought we'd agreed to keep it to this thread? I know it is an emotive and passionate sport but perhaps if we can't follow some simple rules the mods should dish out some warnings.

Suggested that and got a reply from Cmdr Chasey - Basically there is no forum rule that says doping discussions should be confined to a designated thread so the modmins are powerless to act. It has to be self policing...

above_the_cows

ddraver wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I was disappointed to see today's Spoiler thread chewed up by Froome doping allegations following his win. I thought we'd agreed to keep it to this thread? I know it is an emotive and passionate sport but perhaps if we can't follow some simple rules the mods should dish out some warnings.

Suggested that and got a reply from Cmdr Chasey - Basically there is no forum rule that says doping discussions should be confined to a designated thread so the modmins are powerless to act. It has to be self policing...

Apparently people can 'post where they like'. Says it all if you ask me. Shame as no one is trying to silence anyone. People can debate away to their heart's content over the existence or not of something that is not yet provable, hell Christians have been doing that for 2,000 years and Jews for even longer but it gets annoying when that debate gets in the way of and derails other discussions.

Rundfahrt

Above The Cows wrote:

hipshot wrote:

Not claiming evidence.

Just my opinion nothing more.

(It was right about Lance btw)

Except Chris Froome is not Lance Armstrong.

Apparently a virgin once gave birth to a baby. Doesn't mean every other baby is born to a virgin.

And Armstrong wasn't Ullrich and Pantani and Landis and Merckx and Indurain, and Riis and Anquetil and Pelisser...etc.

deejay

frenchfighter wrote:

2013: 242km at 42km/h av
2000: 142km at 35km/h av

Never seen (ever) as many people lining the Ventoux and as many mobile homes (RV's) up there at one time.
This must be a factor in your calculations.

Yellow Peril

Above The Cows wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I was disappointed to see today's Spoiler thread chewed up by Froome doping allegations following his win. I thought we'd agreed to keep it to this thread? I know it is an emotive and passionate sport but perhaps if we can't follow some simple rules the mods should dish out some warnings.

Suggested that and got a reply from Cmdr Chasey - Basically there is no forum rule that says doping discussions should be confined to a designated thread so the modmins are powerless to act. It has to be self policing...

Apparently people can 'post where they like'. Says it all if you ask me. Shame as no one is trying to silence anyone. People can debate away to their heart's content over the existence or not of something that is not yet provable, hell Christians have been doing that for 2,000 years and Jews for even longer but it gets annoying when that debate gets in the way of and derails other discussions.

I think it's a breach of rule 9 and if I'm right Rick is being disingenuous when he says he is powerless. I've tried to PM to request that he dishes out some warnings but I don't know if the PM has gone.

Rundfahrt

Yellow Peril- Why are you only disappointed by the doping accusations against Froome? I saw mentions of Quintana in that thread, I have seen Contador, Valverde and many others in race threads. Why only when it's about Froome?

ddraver

Yellow Peril wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I was disappointed to see today's Spoiler thread chewed up by Froome doping allegations following his win. I thought we'd agreed to keep it to this thread? I know it is an emotive and passionate sport but perhaps if we can't follow some simple rules the mods should dish out some warnings.

Suggested that and got a reply from Cmdr Chasey - Basically there is no forum rule that says doping discussions should be confined to a designated thread so the modmins are powerless to act. It has to be self policing...

Apparently people can 'post where they like'. Says it all if you ask me. Shame as no one is trying to silence anyone. People can debate away to their heart's content over the existence or not of something that is not yet provable, hell Christians have been doing that for 2,000 years and Jews for even longer but it gets annoying when that debate gets in the way of and derails other discussions.

I think it's a breach of rule 9 and if I'm right Rick is being disingenuous when he says he is powerless. I've tried to PM to request that he dishes out some warnings but I don't know if the PM has gone.

Remember the boy is in NYC at the moment...

I requested the thread get locked as a global deterrent, which maybe is going too far. Moving some posts would be good, but if he's not on the same timescale as us then it's difficult....

Yellow Peril

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yellow Peril- Why are you only disappointed by the doping accusations against Froome? I saw mentions of Quintana in that thread, I have seen Contador, Valverde and many others in race threads. Why only when it's about Froome?

For the benefit of the tape I will say that I'm disappointed about all doping allegations in that thread. Froome was just meant to be an example. For what its worth I think the peleton is pretty clean at the moment. I know you have a more cynical view Rundfahrt I just wish you'd use this thread and not the spoiler thread to bang your drum. Is that an unreasonable request?

mike6

Paul 8v wrote:

mike6 wrote:

This is a load of tosh, isnt it???? "Froomes performance just wasnt believable today" o.k then, whos was? 2nd place, 3d place, 4th, you tell us, in your wisdom, how far down the finishing order we have to go before we believe in the athlete?

This ^^^^

All these 'experts' getting hysterical over Froome's ride, was Quintana's OK as he finished a bit further back, or Contadors, where was the cut off?

Top man Paul. I notice no one is prepared to put there money where there prejudice is.

Rundfahrt

Yellow Peril wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yellow Peril- Why are you only disappointed by the doping accusations against Froome? I saw mentions of Quintana in that thread, I have seen Contador, Valverde and many others in race threads. Why only when it's about Froome?

For the benefit of the tape I will say that I'm disappointed about all doping allegations in that thread. Froome was just meant to be an example. For what its worth I think the peloton is pretty clean at the moment. I know you have a more cynical view Rundfahrt I just wish you'd use this thread and not the spoiler thread to bang your drum. Is that an unreasonable request?

I don't think I have a cyclical view as much as a realistic view. I posted a bit about my background in another doping thread where I wrote a lengthy bit about doping and the attitudes around here, I can also add that I am friends with a numbers of riders, DS and sponsors. Cycling is better today, but far from clean.

In response to your request, yes, I think it is unreasonable to discuss the topic, the days stage, in this thread. Had I been discussing rest day doping then it would not go in that thread, but I was discussing the stage and its actions. Had the blind Sky defender not come out in force to attack, insult and post USPS style defenses I would have been more then happy to talk about the sudden GC emergence of riders from the former Rabobank team or performances by riders on teams previously known for doping, etc. Unfortunately, if Sky is mentioned knickers get twisted and everything else is out the door.

ddraver

I don't want to come over all mini mod but could everyone posting please read this first?

http://www.pennfedbmwe.org/docs/referen ... _fact.html

If your post qualifies as an opinion, please put "In my opinion" in front of it...

Much obliged!

hipshot

This whole thread is opinion.

With a bit of hearsay and speculation.

salsiccia1

OK, my two pennorth:

If something looks too good to be true it usually is. However, I don't think that with Froome and Sky, for the following reasons:
He was only 30 secs ahead of Quintana
I think I'm right in saying he still wouldn't have beaten Pharmstrong/Pantani/et al to the top
Sky as a team appear to so far ahead of everyone else in lots of technical/analytical areas
His form has been building steadily through the season, and arriving at the Tour at his peak is what you'd expect with Sky and their meticulous approach
And that is without looking at the obvious natural talent he has, which he was beginning to show before he got ill for a few years, and once he got over that came to the fore

I'm not naive enough to say he definitely isn't doping. I know enough to never say that categorically. However, looking at what we've seen is not too good to be true and certainly gives us nowhere near enough evidence to say definitively he is doping. All IMHO of course.

Yellow Peril

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yellow Peril- Why are you only disappointed by the doping accusations against Froome? I saw mentions of Quintana in that thread, I have seen Contador, Valverde and many others in race threads. Why only when it's about Froome?

For the benefit of the tape I will say that I'm disappointed about all doping allegations in that thread. Froome was just meant to be an example. For what its worth I think the peloton is pretty clean at the moment. I know you have a more cynical view Rundfahrt I just wish you'd use this thread and not the spoiler thread to bang your drum. Is that an unreasonable request?

I don't think I have a cyclical view as much as a realistic view. I posted a bit about my background in another doping thread where I wrote a lengthy bit about doping and the attitudes around here, I can also add that I am friends with a numbers of riders, DS and sponsors. Cycling is better today, but far from clean.

In response to your request, yes, I think it is unreasonable to discuss the topic, the days stage, in this thread. Had I been discussing rest day doping then it would not go in that thread, but I was discussing the stage and its actions. Had the blind Sky defender not come out in force to attack, insult and post USPS style defenses I would have been more then happy to talk about the sudden GC emergence of riders from the former Rabobank team or performances by riders on teams previously known for doping, etc. Unfortunately, if Sky is mentioned knickers get twisted and everything else is out the door.

I don't really know what to say to that I just want to enjoy the racing. If someone gets legged up for cheating then I'm prepared to throw as many rocks as the next man but I don't want doping to occupy my every waking thought in pro cycling. that's why it's nice to talk about a race and then if something is eating you up on a drugs front go to a dedicated thread.

dave milne

Do I believe Sky has a doping system? No, happy to take DB at face value

Am I 100% sure of Froome, no I admit I'm not but am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt

ddraver

Journal Velo ‏@JournalVelo 1m
@festinagirl @HeyHoRothko true, whichever way you slice it Quintana and Dan Martin went up faster than some dopers did in their prime

I expect the Movistar and Garmin Sharp are doping threads forthwith!

hipshot

Yellow Peril wrote:

[I don't really know what to say to that I just want to enjoy the racing. If someone gets legged up for cheating then I'm prepared to throw as many rocks as the next man but I don't want doping to occupy my every waking thought in pro cycling. that's why it's nice to talk about a race and then if something is eating you up on a drugs front go to a dedicated thread.

It is possible to enjoy the sport and accept that doping is always present to some extent. I actually think it's part of the fabric of the sport. A minority opinion granted, although historically just as valid as any other. If Froome is doping his achievement is still immense, as was Armstrong's, Pantani's etc.

One of the worst things about this issue is some people overly identifying with certain riders/teams, attaching their own values to them and trying to silence discussion of the topic.

Rundfahrt

hipshot wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

[I don't really know what to say to that I just want to enjoy the racing. If someone gets legged up for cheating then I'm prepared to throw as many rocks as the next man but I don't want doping to occupy my every waking thought in pro cycling. that's why it's nice to talk about a race and then if something is eating you up on a drugs front go to a dedicated thread.

It is possible to enjoy the sport and accept that doping is always present to some extent. I actually think it's part of the fabric of the sport. A minority opinion granted, although historically just as valid as any other. If Froome is doping his achievement is still immense, as was Armstrong's, Pantani's etc.

One of the worst things about this issue is some people overly identifying with certain riders/teams, attaching their own values to them and trying to silence discussion of the topic.

Only fools think there is little or no doping...in any competition. It doesn't matter what is at stake, millions or just bragging rights, there is cheating. It's a fact of life, but some don't want to hear it if it is about their team or favorite athlete. Twitter and running forums are packed with people claiming that the Jamaicans busted today would never have doped. It happens in every sport and happened with the USPS fans back in the day (despite certain people insisting this forum sounds nothing like those did). One has three choices:

A) Deny,especially for your team/athlete. (See: Armstrong, Contador, Wiggins and now Froome as examples of fans doing this to an extreme)

Get angry and forget about sport entirely.

C) Understand what is going on, have a desire that dopers get busted,. Question results, but enjoy the show.

RichN95.

Rundfahrt wrote:

C) Understand what is going on, have a desire that dopers get busted,. Question results, but enjoy the show.

In the current environment though, you also have to question those doing the questioning - there's a lot of abuse of numbers and misinformation put out by some of the alleged anti-doping brigade. Neither side has a monopoly on BS, but since the Armstrong revelations, the anti-dopers seem to be pushing boundaries more.

So 'understand what is going on' is what few are actually doing. For most it is picking a side and trying to mash 'evidence' to fit it.

heavymental

What I find is often overlooked with this argument is what the riders are actually saying in response to the speculation.

If Froome/Wiggins/Sky are doping then it'd be a far bigger sporting fraud than Armstrong managed. Wiggins came out last year and detailed the personal reasons why he wasn't doping and, as far as I know, Froome and DB have commented too (that might be an understatement but I haven't been watching too much).

It seems to me that some people don't really understand how difficult it is to lie through your teeth about something. Lance went for all out aggression when answering the questions and so he didn't really have to do too much straight denial. Wiggo went into the details about what shame it would bring upon him and his family in the little town he lives in. For that to be lies would surely border on psychopathic. At the end of the day these guys are bike riders; they didn't get into it because they have a talent for deception and wanted to cheat there way to fortune. In short, I don't think that if a rider gives any kind of detailed denial of doping that he is. Just because I don't think many riders are psycho enough.