Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

Macaloon

Rundfahrt wrote:

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

I'm not sure I follow you. You appear to be suggesting that when it comes to doping there's no difference between Wiggins/Froome and Armstrong/Contador. That can't be right.

Rundfahrt

RichN95 wrote:

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.

You are right, to an extent. There are people who make "evidence" fit just as there are those who will refuse to hear anything that might cast aspersions on their favorites. Here on this forum for the last two Tours we have had people post numbers that are not verified to prove Wiggo and Froome dope. Conversely we have people who respond to any question of them with demands for evidence (USPS fan style) or with insults and attacks (a la the person who responded to a post today simply with "stfu"). It's unfortunate but some people feel they have a vested interest in it.

I posted this in another thread but I get where the Sky defenders are coming from. Most of them have followed pro cycling for at least ten years and many twenty or thirty, that's a long wait to see someone from your country win the big race. I was lucky I only had to wait about two years, but it was huge after events of the 1985 Tour and the actions of Hinault. Then everyone here thought it was going to be the USA's glory years, we had our own team (7-Eleven), we had guys like Hampsten, LeMond, Phinney, etc. But things went dry after 1991. We waited eight years and then exalted in Armstrong winning the Tour. We wanted to hear nothing bad about him. We attacked and cursed at people who questioned, we used every excuse, we demanded evidence, we claimed every close stage as proof he was clean and 2003 was the icing on the cake. I was there and I understand how you guys feel right now. Then I got to know many people in pro cycling through my job and they were telling stories a lot like people in other pro sports. I realized what was what and stopped defending Armstrong against all but the truly ludicrous attacks. I started doing what I do now, enjoy the spectacle, the show but know the score. I question when things need to be questioned (I stirred up trouble on twitter by mentioning that Bolt was beating these doped sprinters, but it is a logical question). I hope for a clean tomorrow. I see guys like Phinney, Teejay and Talansky and hope they are as clean as I hear from people in the sport, but I certainly won't bet all of my life savings on it. It's funny how often I get attacks and insulted, when all I am is you guys ten years down the road. Hopefully your pride of British cycling riders won't get busted but just realize it is not that far fetched that they will.

Rundfahrt

Macaloon wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

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

I'm not sure I follow you. You appear to be suggesting that when it comes to doping there's no difference between Wiggins/Froome and Armstrong/Contador. That can't be right.

I am simply naming some of the big winner who came into question and what their fans did when the questions came.

TMR

For the non-blinkered, a decent watch: http://vimeo.com/58740295

TMR

Heavymental wrote:

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).

So what? That's exactly what LA did ages ago. Suggested it would be crazy for someone who had recovered from Cancer to dope - but that didn't stop him did it?

Cleat Eastwood

Didnt someone suggest that 4'14 from first to second and 4'14 from second to tenth is suspicious -well its actually less so if you see the actual times - only 50 secs separate 2nd to 5th after stage 15,

yesterday, stage 14, the difference between 2nd and 10th was 3'20 - 1st to 2nd was 2'28 - hardly earth shattering differences - infact I think it shows how volatile and precarious are positions 2-10.

But I suppose people see what they want to see.

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

For the non-blinkered, a decent watch: http://vimeo.com/58740295

Ha! Are you serious? That's like thinking you'll get balanced political analysis from the Telegraph or the Guardian

RichN95.

Rundfahrt wrote:

You are right, to an extent. There are people who make "evidence" fit just as there are those who will refuse to hear anything that might cast aspersions on their favorites. Here on this forum for the last two Tours we have had people post numbers that are not verified to prove Wiggo and Froome dope. Conversely we have people who respond to any question of them with demands for evidence (USPS fan style) or with insults and attacks (a la the person who responded to a post today simply with "stfu"). It's unfortunate but some people feel they have a vested interest in it.

I think the problem on the race thread today happened because you leapt in with a comment about how miraculously Sky had recovered from two days ago when they fell apart.

This was daft on two counts: 1. They didn't really fall apart on Friday - Saxo were just better and 2. within ten minutes of you posting it Sky had largely disappeared leaving just three of them outnumbered.

So it came across as a bit troll like, so you going to get a response.

There's plenty of intelligent discussion to be had, so let's try and stick to that.

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

Ha! Are you serious? That's like thinking you'll get balanced political analysis from the Telegraph or the Guardian

Perhaps. But he was right about Armstrong. Time will tell whether his other suspicions are correct.

Any comments about the video, or were you just posting to troll?

RichN95.

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Ha! Are you serious? That's like thinking you'll get balanced political analysis from the Telegraph or the Guardian

Perhaps. But he was right about Armstrong. Time will tell whether his other suspicions are correct.

Any comments about the video, or were you just posting to troll?

My first ever PTP pick was a winner (Cancellara 2006 Roubaix). It doesn't mean they're all right.

As for the video - I saw it a while back. It portrays the outsider, the victim, the martyr for his cause - the sort of stuff Kimmage loves to play up to. He's the great anti-doping crusader who exposes the cheats (in reality he's exposed no-one since Rough Ride).
He says that the British media are too afraid to ask the tough questions, but he will (how would he know? he's not been to a race since 2008). He's just asking 2012's questions.

So far, in his great crusade, his video diaries have consisted of cliched stuff like 'what do mechanics do', 'what's in a musette'. His questions have been embarrassing - 'why isn't EBH winning the Tour' and then there's his actual articles:

Weekend 1: A interview with a bloke who once met Anquetil's wife and wholesale lifting of an article by Andrew Hood
Weekend 2: Tackling what Sean Kelly may have done in 1984
Weekend 3: A fairly lame article in which he can't even bring himself to make insinuations against Froome. Contains at least three perjorative bits of nonsense.

Not exactly Woodward & Bernstein, is it?

According to twitter he asks 'the tough questions' but he never seems to ask them to anyone or even want to hear answers.

So, I don't consider him in the same messianic way that some do.

jonomc4

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

nic_77

^This.
Someone has to win. There will be attacks - sometimes these will be spectacular and successful.

You can't detect doping visually! You can raise suspicion but that is far from the same thing.
If this internet witch hunt continues cycling will be dead - just remember how it is all paid for (sponsors), and be careful what you wish for!

Rundfahrt

RichN95 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

You are right, to an extent. There are people who make "evidence" fit just as there are those who will refuse to hear anything that might cast aspersions on their favorites. Here on this forum for the last two Tours we have had people post numbers that are not verified to prove Wiggo and Froome dope. Conversely we have people who respond to any question of them with demands for evidence (USPS fan style) or with insults and attacks (a la the person who responded to a post today simply with "stfu"). It's unfortunate but some people feel they have a vested interest in it.

I think the problem on the race thread today happened because you leapt in with a comment about how miraculously Sky had recovered from two days ago when they fell apart.

This was daft on two counts: 1. They didn't really fall apart on Friday - Saxo were just better and 2. within ten minutes of you posting it Sky had largely disappeared leaving just three of them outnumbered.

So it came across as a bit troll like, so you going to get a response.

There's plenty of intelligent discussion to be had, so let's try and stick to that.

see you have decided to be the latter group I discussed above. Too bad, I thought you were going to try to have a real conversation. I'll just make my response and move on from you here.

1) Yes, Saxo were good, so good they blew Sky up. Every report I read and every broadcast I saw talked about it. Here is a quote from the Guardian as an example:"Sky tried to chase but had neither the strength nor the numbers."

2) Yes, within minutes of me posting about Sky, on the climb if the Ventoux they were down to two riders who destroyed the peloton. It was very much like Landis and Acevedo doing it for Armstrong in his day. Amazingly after being the final lead out before Froome showed off his seated Cav impression, Porte finished 15th, a mere 2:49 down. Nothing to see here, move along.

So it only came off as trolling to those in the latter category listed above.

I am sure none of this will register with you, but hey.

Rundfahrt

nic_77 wrote:

^This.
Someone has to win. There will be attacks - sometimes these will be spectacular and successful.

You can't detect doping visually! You can raise suspicion but that is far from the same thing.
If this internet witch hunt continues cycling will be dead - just remember how it is all paid for (sponsors), and be careful what you wish for!

Yet on this forum you are not allowed to have suspicion...that is if it is about Sky.

Jonomc4: You shouldn't be thanking LA as he did not even come close to giving cycling it's doping reputation.

nic_77

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yet on this forum you are not allowed to have suspicion...that is if it is about Sky

No go ahead, please be suspicious. Just don't present an idle suspicion as statement of fact, unless you have the evidence to support it. Be prepared to admit that it is fuelled by nothing but doubt and conjecture. The suspicions surrounding LA and USPS were, afterall, supported by several pieces of anecdotal evidence and testimony long before USADA.

Rundfahrt

nic_77 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Yet on this forum you are not allowed to have suspicion...that is if it is about Sky

No go ahead, please be suspicious. Just don't present an idle suspicion as statement of fact, unless you have the evidence to support it. Be prepared to admit that it is fuelled by nothing but doubt and conjecture. The suspicions surrounding LA and USPS were, afterall, supported by several pieces of anecdotal evidence and testimony long before USADA.

Who presents suspicion as fact? When have I ever posted that I know Froome and or Sky dope? You see, unlike others I do not present things I don't know as facts. I merely discuss my suspicions and doubts. It's people like you who try to present these as if I am claiming they are facts and unwilling to admit that. It's all very insecure on your part.

Nice try trying to make it out that I started following cycling in the 2000's and that suspicions about LA were not presented before any testimony. Oh and, you talk about anecdotal evidence, well that would include refusing to release power info, going from an ok time tribalism to being one of the best, being the first pursuit star to become a GT chain, etc. You really should have looked at the definition of anecdotal evidence before trying to use it in your blind defense.

P.S. - Did you feel better about yourself after posting that attempt to insult me in the stage 15 thread?

inseine

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to bash cycling;

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/ ... -substance

6, yes 6 sprinters busted for doping. Good to see the testing is working.

moray_gub

Rundfahrt wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

^This.
Someone has to win. There will be attacks - sometimes these will be spectacular and successful.

You can't detect doping visually! You can raise suspicion but that is far from the same thing.
If this internet witch hunt continues cycling will be dead - just remember how it is all paid for (sponsors), and be careful what you wish for!

Yet on this forum you are not allowed to have suspicion...that is if it is about Sky.

.

I don't think that's the case at all you (amongst others) are just being asked to put a bit of meat to the bones of your suspicions that's all. Now instead of doing just that you often resort to bluster and p*ss and wind about not being allowed to have suspicions re : Sky . Its all a bit mind numbingly boring especially in the stage threads.

Yellow Peril

Rundfahrt wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone is in denial about doping but if I was terminally ill I'd get fed up with someone talking at me about cancer all of the time. Most of the posts I've seen of yours seem to be about doping. It seems you have forgotten about the cycle sport element of this forum. That may be as a result of your super-duper inside knowledge of hanging around the pro scene. You are definitely coming across as more than C)

powerbookboy

Heavymental wrote:

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

[snip]

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.

Whilst I understand the sentiment, I think it's unlikely that the distinction between an outright lie and an evasive answer is enough to suggest someone's clean. Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell have in the past said similar things to Wiggins, Froome (not to pick on them, just they are some of the few who have been explicit, literally in Wiggo's case).

Maybe it's just that these days journalists and the public will only accept as credible more explicit denials; thus whether clean or dirty you have to use the rhetoric that's considered acceptable at that time. In the 00s the language was "I've never failed a test", now it's "I can't afford to as the consequences are so extreme".

The only difference is that now you have very little wiggle room. Back then "I've never failed a test" leaves you the option of legally and in the court of public opinion twisting that into "I never cheated" or "I never gained unfair advantage" as everyone was doped to the balls. There's no grey now. It's black and white.

powerbookboy

nic_77 wrote:

^This.
Someone has to win. There will be attacks - sometimes these will be spectacular and successful.

You can't detect doping visually! You can raise suspicion but that is far from the same thing.
If this internet witch hunt continues cycling will be dead - just remember how it is all paid for (sponsors), and be careful what you wish for!

Maybe it will just get smaller? Cycling, for all it's problems still provides an unbeatable Return on Investment. Take some of the world's most rabid fans, and a sprinkle of soap opera drama, then shove my logo in front of 10s of millions of consumers for hours on end for 3 weeks of the year (forgetting completely the slighter fewer, but still millions who watch all year round). And make sure you can't time skip through all the ads like a traditional advert, as it's more akin to product placement, Oh I forgot - only charge me a few million for the pleasure. Advertisers wet dream. Budgets will just get smaller, someone will always that a gamble on "reputational risk", just the premium paid will be less.

powerbookboy

jonomc4 wrote:

The thing that saddens me in cycling now - is that anyone or any team that win are considered cheats - it is a fact of life that someone has to win the race they cant all be cheats? Thanks LA.

To be blunt - tough. We are where we are. You'd have to deluded to not have suspicions about any successful professional athlete. There's so much money at stake, the character-set of any ultra-successful and competitive person is typically that of a risk-taker, so why is anyone surprised that doping continues?

The real success of the last few years is not in my opinion that the testing for individual drugs is getting better, it's the biological passport is enabling the testers to more accurately identify the people to test and the windows to test in. It's reducing the window of opportunity and reducing the gains that can be made to such an extent that the whole risk/reward balance is tilting towards Sky's "marginal gains" from "needle up the bum".

Having said that, due to the performance differentials getting narrower, you could think there's an increased benefit to doping now compared to 10 years ago. If I can find a small edge from doping in this environment, it's likely to give me a larger relative gain than from 10 years ago.

Whilst my gut feeling is Sky are clean, I can't deny that when Froome spun away from Bertie I blurted "that's ridiculous" out loud. The gap that he pulled in such a short distance was astonishing. That it inched out over the next few k until the elastic finally snapped in the last k, was somewhat reassuring, but you can't be surprised that people have doubts about Froome. His story bears too many similarities to LA for people not to draw parallels.

But if it wasn't Froome, it would be someone else. If Bertie was leading, the story would be the same (with more basis in hard fact). If the Belkin boys where winning, we'd all be nodding and whispering "new sponser to impress, dirty Team". If Valverde was winning everyone would be choking in their beer. It goes on and on.

It's nothing personal against Sky, Froome or any rider. It's justified suspicion against the best endurance athlete in the world. They've earned our respect, but I don't think they can ever earn our trust during their career. They'll have to wait until they're old and fat before we can unequivocally give them that...

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

My first ever PTP pick was a winner (Cancellara 2006 Roubaix). It doesn't mean they're all right.

Seven years of hurt, eh?

No_Ta_Doctor

Post deleted, please stop the insults to other members

ddraver

petemadoc

And so to summarise this 26 page thread...

Some people think Sky are doping, and some people think they are clean.

bockers

No tA Doctor wrote:

If i hear "people like you" "invested too much in their favorite riders" "waited so long for a British Champion" "just like uspostal fans" and the absolutely incredible "not allowed an opinion" one more time from Rundfahrt I swear I'm going to go completely f@cking postal.

We know your opinion, we've heard it over and over and over again. Far from not being allowed to have one, youve been allowed to post it a million times without the mods stepping in. but apparently you dont think were allowed to express the counter opinion that youre a nasty little troll with a poisonous agenda and a massive superiority complex. And when you're trying to caricature some of the most level headed sensible posters like Rich as blind fan boys incapable of reasonable debate it's clear you wouldn't know it if someone smacked you in the face with it. All attempts at reasoned discourse just meet the same crap.

Please, for the love of God, just go away. I've had stomach upsets that have been more pleasurable, and have offered more intelligent thought.

Thank you, thank you and very well said sir.

bockers

PeteMadoc wrote:

And so to summarise this 26 page thread...

Some people think Sky are doping, and some people think they are clean.

Well to be fair it is more like
"Some people are certain Sky are doping, despite no evidence, and others are willing to give Sky the benefit of the doubt in light of the fact that in civilised society we assume innocence until proven of guilt"


No I shall step away from this caustic thread an try and enjoy my cycling again. This has so far necessitated me no longer using twitter for the duration of the tour.

tailwindhome

....

smithy21

Powerbookboy- good post.