Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

No_Ta_Doctor

Rundfahrt wrote:

Pross wrote:

cdoh wrote:

Perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy Brailsford et al/British Cycling risking all their past achievements being destroyed by association so Froome can win this. Do you seriously think he would take such a risk knowingly or unknowingly for that matter ? If you do then logically Wiggins win is just as tainted.

Exactly this, Wiggins even makes the same point in his book. If you believe Sky have organised doping then it is logical that BC does too and everything that has led to the success and growth of the sport in this country has been built on cheating. That would be a lot of people with their careers, reputations and MBE/OBE/CBEs at stake.

Now where have I heard a defense almost exactly like that before?

It cracks me up how you guys:

1) Will completely dismiss any discussion of even the possibility of doping at Sky. Not merely say that you think they are clean but get vehemently angry and make it as if you KNOW they are clean.

2) Post things that are nearly word for word what was being said on American boards during the Armstrong years.

New team, new country, new rider(s), same old shite.

1) That wasn't a vehement or angry dismissal, it was reasoned argument.

2) Actually, what was being said on American boards went along the lines of "she would say that, she's an Irish prostitute", "he would say that, he's a bitter ex team-mate that couldn't cut it", " he would say that, he's a bitter mechanic that was trying to blackmail poor lance". It was interspersed with "he's been tested a million billion times and never been positive", "yes, but he had a TUE" and "he just noticed Simeoni had dropped a gel bar and was taking it up to him".

Now if you go and find Sky's Betsy Andreu et al to spill the beans I might be able to take you seriously.

Pross

I'm not vehemently angry, I've been around the sport long enough to understand the cynicism. I just really don't see any evidence of anything untoward. There will always be riders that go up hill faster than others. I think the situation differs from LA / USPS because of the close link with British Cycling and the Olympic success. I'm not sure if you are UK based but if you are I'm sure you realise how massive it would be if that success was linked to doping. Add to that the situation the Murdochs would be in if people thought they were complicit on top of everything they had thrown at them in the last couple of years. Armstrong would be minor compared to that fall out.

Rundfahrt

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Pross wrote:

cdoh wrote:

Perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy Brailsford et al/British Cycling risking all their past achievements being destroyed by association so Froome can win this. Do you seriously think he would take such a risk knowingly or unknowingly for that matter ? If you do then logically Wiggins win is just as tainted.

Exactly this, Wiggins even makes the same point in his book. If you believe Sky have organised doping then it is logical that BC does too and everything that has led to the success and growth of the sport in this country has been built on cheating. That would be a lot of people with their careers, reputations and MBE/OBE/CBEs at stake.

Now where have I heard a defense almost exactly like that before?

It cracks me up how you guys:

1) Will completely dismiss any discussion of even the possibility of doping at Sky. Not merely say that you think they are clean but get vehemently angry and make it as if you KNOW they are clean.

2) Post things that are nearly word for word what was being said on American boards during the Armstrong years.

New team, new country, new rider(s), same old shite.

1) That wasn't a vehement or angry dismissal, it was reasoned argument.

2) Actually, what was being said on American boards went along the lines of "she would say that, she's an Irish prostitute", "he would say that, he's a bitter ex team-mate that couldn't cut it", " he would say that, he's a bitter mechanic that was trying to blackmail poor lance". It was interspersed with "he's been tested a million billion times and never been positive", "yes, but he had a TUE" and "he just noticed Simeoni had dropped a gel bar and was taking it up to him".

Now if you go and find Sky's Betsy Andreu et al to spill the beans I might be able to take you seriously.

1) Sorry, but that was about as well reasoned as "I almost died from cancer why would I risk my health by doping." Also, I was not just referring to this one post when I talked of angry and vehement, just peruse all the threads from this year and last years Tour and see the response to any discussion that Sky may be doping.

2) Very convenient to pick certain things that are very specific and ignore others that are general, you know things like cadence, sports nutrition, wind tunnels, equipment, etc. Used by Sky and by USPS.

3) First of all I hope their is not Sky Betsy, because, based on personal experience with her having nothing to do with LA in any way, it is my opinion that she is a bit loopy. Secondly the whole not taking me seriously until you have someone with definite proof is precisely what the LA fans were saying. Nice job helping me prove my point.

Care to swing and miss again? Perhaps you could go the ddraver route and start making things up about me or personally attack me like others did last year.

Vino'sGhost

Rundfahrt wrote:

Pross wrote:

cdoh wrote:

Perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy Brailsford et al/British Cycling risking all their past achievements being destroyed by association so Froome can win this. Do you seriously think he would take such a risk knowingly or unknowingly for that matter ? If you do then logically Wiggins win is just as tainted.

Exactly this, Wiggins even makes the same point in his book. If you believe Sky have organised doping then it is logical that BC does too and everything that has led to the success and growth of the sport in this country has been built on cheating. That would be a lot of people with their careers, reputations and MBE/OBE/CBEs at stake.

Now where have I heard a defense almost exactly like that before?

It cracks me up how you guys:

1) Will completely dismiss any discussion of even the possibility of doping at Sky. Not merely say that you think they are clean but get vehemently angry and make it as if you KNOW they are clean.

2) Post things that are nearly word for word what was being said on American boards during the Armstrong years.

New team, new country, new rider(s), same old shite.

+1

Rundfahrt

Pross wrote:

I'm not vehemently angry, I've been around the sport long enough to understand the cynicism. I just really don't see any evidence of anything untoward. There will always be riders that go up hill faster than others. I think the situation differs from LA / USPS because of the close link with British Cycling and the Olympic success. I'm not sure if you are UK based but if you are I'm sure you realise how massive it would be if that success was linked to doping. Add to that the situation the Murdochs would be in if people thought they were complicit on top of everything they had thrown at them in the last couple of years. Armstrong would be minor compared to that fall out.

Ok, I see what you mean. No Olympic or national teams have ever doped or had massive doping programs before. I know that nobody would ever dope if it would be a massive blow to a large community. Of course no big name person would ever let a sports team he owns or sponsors ever dope.

My bad on being cynical towards one of my favorite sports based on its history or calling you guys out for your attitudes towards people who do not fall in lock step with the Sky bandwagon. I am clearly wrong and you have proven it to me.

Now off to buy my £5000 Rapha Team Sky kit to wear it proudly while riding.

(P.s.-I am more cynical about other sports because, at the very least, cycling tries and the media doesn't try to protect it.)

joelsim

Well if they do, then it will all come out in the wash one day.

joelsim

Having seen Froome on the podium today, he'd better hope the wind doesn't blow too hard as it could snap him.

tailwindhome

Rundfahrt wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Pross wrote:

cdoh wrote:

Perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy Brailsford et al/British Cycling risking all their past achievements being destroyed by association so Froome can win this. Do you seriously think he would take such a risk knowingly or unknowingly for that matter ? If you do then logically Wiggins win is just as tainted.

Exactly this, Wiggins even makes the same point in his book. If you believe Sky have organised doping then it is logical that BC does too and everything that has led to the success and growth of the sport in this country has been built on cheating. That would be a lot of people with their careers, reputations and MBE/OBE/CBEs at stake.

Now where have I heard a defense almost exactly like that before?

It cracks me up how you guys:

1) Will completely dismiss any discussion of even the possibility of doping at Sky. Not merely say that you think they are clean but get vehemently angry and make it as if you KNOW they are clean.

2) Post things that are nearly word for word what was being said on American boards during the Armstrong years.

New team, new country, new rider(s), same old shite.

1) That wasn't a vehement or angry dismissal, it was reasoned argument.

2) Actually, what was being said on American boards went along the lines of "she would say that, she's an Irish prostitute", "he would say that, he's a bitter ex team-mate that couldn't cut it", " he would say that, he's a bitter mechanic that was trying to blackmail poor lance". It was interspersed with "he's been tested a million billion times and never been positive", "yes, but he had a TUE" and "he just noticed Simeoni had dropped a gel bar and was taking it up to him".

Now if you go and find Sky's Betsy Andreu et al to spill the beans I might be able to take you seriously.

1) Sorry, but that was about as well reasoned as "I almost died from cancer why would I risk my health by doping." Also, I was not just referring to this one post when I talked of angry and vehement, just peruse all the threads from this year and last years Tour and see the response to any discussion that Sky may be doping.

2) Very convenient to pick certain things that are very specific and ignore others that are general, you know things like cadence, sports nutrition, wind tunnels, equipment, etc. Used by Sky and by USPS.

3) First of all I hope their is not Sky Betsy, because, based on personal experience with her having nothing to do with LA in any way, it is my opinion that she is a bit loopy. Secondly the whole not taking me seriously until you have someone with definite proof is precisely what the LA fans were saying. Nice job helping me prove my point.

Care to swing and miss again? Perhaps you could go the ddraver route and start making things up about me or personally attack me like others did last year.

You're correct about point 1. People cheat in the Olympics too. British people cheat in the Olympics. What no one has been able to explain to me however is how so much suspicion is directed at Sky whereas there is hardly a word about Hoy, Pendleton etc. This is odd to me as they use similar methodologies, have the same coaching team and dominate their targeted events.


2 - I don't understand what you are trying to say

3 - same as 2

Pross

Rundfahrt wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Pross wrote:

cdoh wrote:

Perhaps I'm being naive but I just don't buy Brailsford et al/British Cycling risking all their past achievements being destroyed by association so Froome can win this. Do you seriously think he would take such a risk knowingly or unknowingly for that matter ? If you do then logically Wiggins win is just as tainted.

Exactly this, Wiggins even makes the same point in his book. If you believe Sky have organised doping then it is logical that BC does too and everything that has led to the success and growth of the sport in this country has been built on cheating. That would be a lot of people with their careers, reputations and MBE/OBE/CBEs at stake.

Now where have I heard a defense almost exactly like that before?

It cracks me up how you guys:

1) Will completely dismiss any discussion of even the possibility of doping at Sky. Not merely say that you think they are clean but get vehemently angry and make it as if you KNOW they are clean.

2) Post things that are nearly word for word what was being said on American boards during the Armstrong years.

New team, new country, new rider(s), same old shite.

1) That wasn't a vehement or angry dismissal, it was reasoned argument.

2) Actually, what was being said on American boards went along the lines of "she would say that, she's an Irish prostitute", "he would say that, he's a bitter ex team-mate that couldn't cut it", " he would say that, he's a bitter mechanic that was trying to blackmail poor lance". It was interspersed with "he's been tested a million billion times and never been positive", "yes, but he had a TUE" and "he just noticed Simeoni had dropped a gel bar and was taking it up to him".

Now if you go and find Sky's Betsy Andreu et al to spill the beans I might be able to take you seriously.

1) Sorry, but that was about as well reasoned as "I almost died from cancer why would I risk my health by doping." Also, I was not just referring to this one post when I talked of angry and vehement, just peruse all the threads from this year and last years Tour and see the response to any discussion that Sky may be doping.

2) Very convenient to pick certain things that are very specific and ignore others that are general, you know things like cadence, sports nutrition, wind tunnels, equipment, etc. Used by Sky and by USPS.

3) First of all I hope their is not Sky Betsy, because, based on personal experience with her having nothing to do with LA in any way, it is my opinion that she is a bit loopy. Secondly the whole not taking me seriously until you have someone with definite proof is precisely what the LA fans were saying. Nice job helping me prove my point.

Care to swing and miss again? Perhaps you could go the ddraver route and start making things up about me or personally attack me like others did last year.

With regards to your point 2, has it occurred to you that all those things (I.e. using the most modern science and technology) do play a big part? Just because USPS were running a doping programme doesn't mean that they didn't also benefit from attention to detail in all other aspects. It's actually amazing how stuck in the past many teams still are, for all the improvements to bikes over the years the training techniques are the same as decades ago.

tailwindhome

To be honest without any evidence the argument can be summed up by the thread title.

iainf72

I don't like Sky. I think they lie a fair amount, don't practise what they preach but do I think they're dopers?

Nope, not seen anything that would make me think they do.

I practically dance a jig whenever they fail in a race, that's how much I dislike them. When they hooked up with Rapha I wept for a week, but I don't let my dislike for them cloud that fact that there's not any evidence that says they're doping.

Yeah, so they look like USPS sometimes. USPS were tooled up, doesn't mean their strategy was wrong.

Thanks to the 90's and 00's nobody has a bloody clue what "clean" cycling looks like.

frenchfighter

Joelsim wrote:

Having seen Froome on the podium today, he'd better hope the wind doesn't blow too hard as it could snap him.

Pretty stick thin isn't he. Still it wont stop him TTing better than anyone this race.

frenchfighter

Doobz wrote:

quoted from science of sport

Three quick thoughts on ‎#Froome's performance in the ‎#TDF today:

1. It was fast, very fast. The 23:14 ascent of Ax-3-Domaines puts Froome in third on the all-time list for the climb, behind only Laiseka and Armstrong in 2001. The VAM of 1715 m/h converts to a power output of 6.3 W/kg (Ferrari method) and about 6.5 W/kg with other models (CPL, rst). Very fast.

2. Before today's performance is instantly condemned as proof of nefarious pharmacology in the sport, keep in mind what I've tried to emphasize many times over the last few years, which is the context of the climb and variability around performance. For example, this climb was done in Stage 12, 13 and 14 of the 2001, 2003 and 2005 Tours, respectively. The earlier placement in week 1 as the first climb of the Tour may affect performance. Also, variability in conditions (particularly wind and heat) make it impossible to make 'guilt by performance' proclamations. Let's wait to analyze the entire Tour, the collection of climbs, and then compare to history's known dopers. The problem when you get too close in is a kind of "performance pixelation", so step back and see the whole screen. That will happen in time.

3. Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That's because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.

Either it is one exceptional individual, or...well, we know the rest, we have seen this movie too often in the sport.

But, this is something only time will tell, as it always does.

Ross

Just quoting this as everyone should read it a few times. I really like the guy's work going back many years - interesting, unbiased and credible.
Point 3 should be of particularly note. Deux vitesse.

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Having seen Froome on the podium today, he'd better hope the wind doesn't blow too hard as it could snap him.

Pretty stick thin isn't he. Still it wont stop him TTing better than anyone this race.

This is the sort of argument which drives me bonkers.

Froome doing a good TT = doper because he is tall and thin.
Contador/Quintana doing a good TT = pure racer even though they are small and thin.

Contador 62kg 5'9 1/2
Froome 69kg 6'1
Quintana 61kg 5'6


(according to the always correct Wikipedia)

frenchfighter

I don't think Sky have institutionalised doping in the traditional sense.

I do think Sky are using advanced and shady techniques though. Along the lines of oxygen tanks, simulation of altitude and various other un-sporting and unnatural methods which I have no idea about.

It is most certainly not normal to have two speeds in the peloton all year unless there is something different to the rest of the teams.

They don't even have the best talent in the peloton. In fact I would go as far as to say they have a lot of average talent that has been turned into ET talent.

Also note that riders can dope even if there is no doping in the team. The team could turn a blind eye to this also.

Froome and Porte are another step up this year - Porte particularly so. They live in the same place and train together and by all accounts love each other (Froome stares at Porte's back wheel all day) and so I would certainly not be surprised if big bad Froome was on the jungle juice for two years and has roped in his australian friend Porte.

tailwindhome

frenchfighter wrote:

Doobz wrote:

quoted from science of sport

Three quick thoughts on ‎#Froome's performance in the ‎#TDF today:

1. It was fast, very fast. The 23:14 ascent of Ax-3-Domaines puts Froome in third on the all-time list for the climb, behind only Laiseka and Armstrong in 2001. The VAM of 1715 m/h converts to a power output of 6.3 W/kg (Ferrari method) and about 6.5 W/kg with other models (CPL, rst). Very fast.

2. Before today's performance is instantly condemned as proof of nefarious pharmacology in the sport, keep in mind what I've tried to emphasize many times over the last few years, which is the context of the climb and variability around performance. For example, this climb was done in Stage 12, 13 and 14 of the 2001, 2003 and 2005 Tours, respectively. The earlier placement in week 1 as the first climb of the Tour may affect performance. Also, variability in conditions (particularly wind and heat) make it impossible to make 'guilt by performance' proclamations. Let's wait to analyze the entire Tour, the collection of climbs, and then compare to history's known dopers. The problem when you get too close in is a kind of "performance pixelation", so step back and see the whole screen. That will happen in time.

3. Having said that, what was noteworthy today were the enormous gaps created on the final climb. That's because with the exception of Froome and perhaps Porte, the rest of the peloton performed in a manner that is typical of cycling over the last few years. Their performances were consistent with post-biological passport levels, and matched or even fell short of the prediction models. It was only Froome and Sky who exceeded them. Therefore, skepticism is normal, and failing to appreciate that will come only from extreme naivety or patriotism. History has taught us the value of some healthy cynicism, and if this level continues for three weeks, it makes for an uncomfortable Tour, of that there is no doubt.

Either it is one exceptional individual, or...well, we know the rest, we have seen this movie too often in the sport.

But, this is something only time will tell, as it always does.

Ross

Just quoting this as everyone should read it a few times. I really like the guy's work going back many years - interesting, unbiased and credible.
Point 3 should be of particularly note. Deux vitesse.

I think point 3 needs to be read within the context of point 2 and with emphasis on the word 'healthy'

above_the_cows

All of this can be summed up by the old chestnut:

Correlation is not causation.

tailwindhome

UK Cycling Expert ‏@ukcyclingexpert 52m
Some people don't have a clue! Saying Chris Froome's performance was 'suspicious' when he only did 15mph at the end - Cavendish can do 40!

gregster04

I honestly don't know why some people bother watching cycling. You wait all year for the Tour, you wait a week of it for the Mountain stage....then you have a cracking stage and your still not happy and want to go on and on about doping when there isn't a shred of evidence of it going on.

Sky have got a very simple strategy...it's been used before but very rarely so well, the whole team has bought into it and are in top condition. I can't see many teams with better rosters myself (for Grand Tours anyway). I appreciate some people think the 'Marginal Gains' thing is dodgy but they're not breaking any rules.

When you look at their rivals, none of them are in good enough form to win and none of them are able to deal with what Sky are doing. Cadel doesn't have it at the very top anymore (see the Giro) Bertie is struggling (stole the Vuelta with some clever tactics then ballsed up the Dauphine and pretended he was riding for Rogers) Andy Schleck still isn't the same bloke, Valverde will never win a Grand Tour, the Dutchmen aren't greats. If Quintana could descend and had held something back he might just have stayed away.

I won't pick one rider who has even been associated with doping in my PTP or for a bet etc but have no problem picking Froome. I still think what has happened is feasibile.

Can't we all try and enjoy the Tour? (until the first drugs bust at least!)

Pross

Frenchie, there is definitely something different with Sky. The way they train! They put together their core team at the start of the season and train together for their specific role (i.e. riding at just below threshold for as long as possible) and only racing where it end fits the training. It's all a bit mechanical and boring but it works and yet no other team seem prepared to sacrifice their best riders to one race (which is probably a good thing for us as spectators). No doubt sponsor pressure prevents other teams having the luxury of this approach. It only works for stage races as they are more controllable which is why the Sky Classics squad are still poor, one day races rely far more on tactics and being prepared to push yourself just over the limit at key points.

mfin

frenchfighter wrote:

I do think Sky are using advanced and shady techniques though. Along the lines of oxygen tanks, simulation of altitude and various other un-sporting and unnatural methods which I have no idea about.

Doo doo do doo do do doo doo (twilight zone music) ...<pause> insert babel fish...'I think there's a conspiracy although I know nothing about it apart that I think there's a conspiracy. Why can't they just use good honest commonly known banned drugs and blood doping like my favourite rider? It's just not sport'

blazing_saddles

The best reason to be sceptical about Sky is that alternative to today's result was a guy who hasn't raced in two months pulling off a Pantani, or Piti Valverde, taking the stage.

Great alternative.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

Nope, not seen anything that would make me think they do.

The logical conclusion of that statement would be that the sport is 'clean' now.

As someone who has watched the sport for a long time what is your feeling on that?

joelsim

frenchfighter wrote:

I don't think Sky have institutionalised doping in the traditional sense.

I do think Sky are using advanced and shady techniques though. Along the lines of oxygen tanks, simulation of altitude and various other un-sporting and unnatural methods which I have no idea about.

I think you've got it in one there. But it's probably legal. I almost feel that Brailsford just plays the percentage game on everything...his marginal gains, plus a stunning strategy and sausage factory training no doubt. I guess you could say it's the Ferrari method sans EPO/blood bags.

Maybe Brailsford just gets Froome's missus to chase the team barking orders in training.

vs

the thing that grates is when did Richie Porte become the second best climber on the planet!

Pross

vs wrote:

the thing that grates is when did Richie Porte become the second best climber on the planet!

What, you mean the bloke who came 7th in his first ever Grand Tour? Yeah, how did he suddenly become good?

EDIT and that was with quite a few dubious characters in the 6 above him so with 3 years extra experience and training specifically targeted at this event whilst being the team number 2 rather than being a domestique in his first top flight season is it really a surprise especially when the competition has apparently cleaned up?

Gazzetta67

vs wrote:

the thing that grates is when did Richie Porte become the second best climber on the planet!

That's easy Aussie swimming/cycling team sky doctor Tim Kerrison told him to train with a pair of spandex speedo's on whilst secretly training on the island far away from it all Tenerife. fills you with a warm glow :roll:

tailwindhome

Gazzetta67 wrote:

vs wrote:

the thing that grates is when did Richie Porte become the second best climber on the planet!

That's easy Aussie swimming/cycling team sky doctor Tim Kerrison told him to train with a pair of spandex speedo's on whilst secretly training on the island far away from it all Tenerife. fills you with a warm glow :roll:

and that's the level of your argument...

TheBigBean

Above The Cows wrote:

All of this can be summed up by the old chestnut:

Correlation is not causation.

True, but there wouldn't be many scientific breakthroughs if all correlations were dismissed without discussion.

For example, smoking and lung cancer were only considered correlated for many years.

mididoctors

If they are dirty it will be exposed in a shorter time than larry