Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
Dorset Boy wrote:Wasn't the last bend a hairpin? In that case Sherwin might be right that there was a headwind at the finish, but not the rest of the way up!
That is exactly what I'm assuming he did....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
rayjay wrote:Very nice replys . You cannot say Gert Leinders is not evidence . He dopes riders for a living . Sky forgot to check his CV? come on. You look at previous results of Wiggo and Froome before Leinders joined Sky and they were no where at that levels they now achieve. They are not new riders. Ring a bell. Some very very fast times beating times set by doped riders . I think that is enough to ask questions . Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Ok - Go and find the thread on Leinders and read that, then read the rest of this thread about the times
The armstrong sentence is relevant only to your own emotional baggage...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The thing I'd really like to see is a list, a calendar or something of all the doping control Froome and the other big names in cycling have been subjected to in this season.
Even more interesting would be a comprehensive comparison of how doping control in cycling compares to the likes of athletics, football, american football etc.
Cycling has the reputation of being an exceptionally dirty sport, and understandably so given its history, but to my knowledge the level of testing in cycling is a decade ahead of that in many other sports. The media would do well to restore some parity to how cycling may or may not compare to other sports.0 -
rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
poppit wrote:Can someone explain, is fanboy/fanboi a derogatory term and something only Sky supporters can be called?
Not unique to Sky. Typically, (and thanks to Urban Dictionary for this):a fanboy/fanboi is an extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.
Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions.**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Some stuff about his martyrdom, completely lacking in self-reflection.
Pointless. Utterly, utterly pointless.
You join a very, very select blocked list.
I have always thought that one shows ones intelligence and maturity when one changes the post they quote to make it an insult and then announces they are blocking you...which usually ends up as a lie.
I have been staying away from the insult road that the Sky fans jump on immediately here but I will make this exception.0 -
ddraver wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Wasn't the last bend a hairpin? In that case Sherwin might be right that there was a headwind at the finish, but not the rest of the way up!
That is exactly what I'm assuming he did....
Its not a full hairpin Its about a 120 degree turn as they go up the "drive way" to the station at the top, not the main road that is actually below it (that wouldve been 180 degrees and full hairpin). You can see it from the aerial shot on Google maps **************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
BTW... off topic I know.. but if you look at street view of the Ventoux summit, there are cyclists there and it looks like the middle of winter with all the snow... freaking nutters :-)**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
emadden wrote:poppit wrote:Can someone explain, is fanboy/fanboi a derogatory term and something only Sky supporters can be called?
Not unique to Sky. Typically, (and thanks to Urban Dictionary for this):a fanboy/fanboi is an extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.
Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions.
It's normally the complete opposite of that on here though.Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 20170 -
Something i've not seen mentioned yet is the Jalabert effect
ie
Dope if you want but one day we're going to re-test those samples and find out what you did0 -
prawny wrote:emadden wrote:poppit wrote:Can someone explain, is fanboy/fanboi a derogatory term and something only Sky supporters can be called?
Not unique to Sky. Typically, (and thanks to Urban Dictionary for this):a fanboy/fanboi is an extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.
Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions.
It's normally the complete opposite of that on here though.
It's a convenient and completely inaccurate put down.
There's a lot of lumping people into a nice little easily straw-mannable categories that goes on.
For the record, as I can remember Lucho V Millar, Hinault, Fignon, LeMond, Roche V Delgado etc I don't regard myself as a newcomer to the sport (another classic put down) and I've consistently maintained that I don't actually like Froome (never warmed to him, though the flak he's taken in this tour is rapidly changing that out of sympathy alone).
But hey, just call me a Sky fanboi noob and be done with it if that's the level if "debate".
See also "only X posts"...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Therein lies the issue some of us have with the Sky fans here. When something does come up the excuses and anger show up (a la USPS). See the hiring of Leinders as a great example.0 -
mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Also this. I would take these as sources of evidence, to be taken on their merits. But at present, after 3.5 years of the team's existence, there aren't any."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 -
Rundfahrt wrote:mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Therein lies the issue some of us have with the Sky fans here. When something does come up the excuses and anger show up (a la USPS). See the hiring of Leinders as a great example.
So unless you take that as prima facie evidence of systematic doping, you're a fanboy?"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 -
Not a big fan of sky or froome myself but I am not seeing the doping angle as of yet"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
-
mididoctors wrote:Not a big fan of sky or froome myself but I am not seeing the doping angle as of yet
About sums me up too."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 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Therein lies the issue some of us have with the Sky fans here. When something does come up the excuses and anger show up (a la USPS). See the hiring of Leinders as a great example.
So unless you take that as prima facie evidence of systematic doping, you're a fanboy?
Where did I say that? You sure spend a lot of your time taking things people say and turning them into other things.
To make clear for you I am saying that when there is dirt (i.e. having a known doping doctor working for them) they start making excuses and go on the attack...like the Postal fans did. In other words there is a lot of talk but the actions don't match the words.0 -
rayjay wrote:[Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
1999 - Backdated TUE for corticosteroids
2005 -
Pretty decent proof that Armstrong was on EPO right the way through his first Tour about 7 and a half years before he admitted and this was what part kicked off the SCA case.
USADA document also had proof that his passport data showed up the fact he was doping during his comeback as well.
There is also the fact that he bragged about failing a test in 2001 which he made "go away" which the UCI (surprisingly) have never released the data for.
Also, his witness intimidation, his purposefully missed tests all count as doping infractions so there's plenty that he was nailed for. Have you read the USADA Reasoned Decision or any of the testimony in the report?0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Therein lies the issue some of us have with the Sky fans here. When something does come up the excuses and anger show up (a la USPS). See the hiring of Leinders as a great example.
and they got shot of him...he hasn't leaked anything in revenge or allowed someother info to come out via another source... Its pretty dam hard to hire anyone untainted. when the spotlight falls on them they have a way of being shovelled off the team (yates rodgers)
the charge of hypocrisy stands on that issue but the "I saw him dope" story has yet to emerge"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:mididoctors wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:Don't forget Until Armstrong admitted doping there was no actual proof that he doped . Fact. He got caught by the huge number of testomonies against Him .Not physical evidence
Aside from the back-dated TUE?
Tell you what, when you find some testimonies from people that have evidence that Sky doped (masseurs, mechanics, doctors, ex temamates, whatever), or even just the one, then you'll have a good point.
this
basically if there is dirt it will leak and given the hot house atmosphere surrounding the issue sooner rather than later
Therein lies the issue some of us have with the Sky fans here. When something does come up the excuses and anger show up (a la USPS). See the hiring of Leinders as a great example.
So unless you take that as prima facie evidence of systematic doping, you're a fanboy?
Where did I say that? You sure spend a lot of your time taking things people say and turning them into other things.
To make clear for you I am saying that when there is dirt (i.e. having a known doping doctor working for them) they start making excuses and go on the attack...like the Postal fans did. In other words there is a lot of talk but the actions don't match the words.
I'll grant you, it's hypocrisy on Sky's part. It doesn't look good. But I'm yet to see anybody who was shown the door through the fallout of his sacking lift the lid on anything. Benefit of the doubt for me."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 -
All the stuff about Armstrong has come out years after he finished racing .At the time the UCI accepted he took a cream for a sore bum . Its only now we can look back and realise he was fibbing . I just chucked in the Armstrong Refrence because there are parallels IMO. Fact is however you want twist the reasons for Sky hiring Leinders.
He dopes riders and Sky knew he had doped riders and should not have hired him and only fired when it came to light otherwise he would stiil be on the staff and they would not have had such a strong no doping policy .
I have never seen so many posts about wind. I do like Paul Sherwin even if he to has made a wind error.
Has anyone played the drinking game where you have to have a shot every time Sean Kelly says "making the caculation" I did once and a whole week of my life has gone missing .0 -
rayjay wrote:All the stuff about Armstrong has come out years after he finished racing .At the time the UCI accepted he took a cream for a sore bum . Its only now we can look back and realise he was fibbing . I just chucked in the Armstrong Refrence because there are parallels IMO. Fact is however you want twist the reasons for Sky hiring Leinders.
He dopes riders and Sky knew he had doped riders and should not have hired him and only fired when it came to light otherwise he would stiil be on the staff and they would not have had such a strong no doping policy .
I have never seen so many posts about wind. I do like Paul Sherwin even if he to has made a wind error.
Has anyone played the drinking game where you have to have a shot every time Sean Kelly says "making the caculation" I did once and a whole week of my life has gone missing .
Amusingly, Sean talked about spectators making the calculation with regards to how much grog they supped whilst waiting for the race to come along."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 -
mididoctors wrote:Not a big fan of sky or froome myself but I am not seeing the doping angle as of yet
I call BS, if you weren't a fan you would be able to see the wood for the trees and the obvious fact that Froome and Sky as a whole are cheating dopers. The fact you can't means you are a Sky fanboi so you may as well accept it. After all they are winning stage races just like all the other dopers have in the past.0 -
lets face it...
Its still all about armstrong"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Pross wrote:mididoctors wrote:Not a big fan of sky or froome myself but I am not seeing the doping angle as of yet
I call BS, if you weren't a fan you would be able to see the wood for the trees and the obvious fact that Froome and Sky as a whole are cheating dopers. The fact you can't means you are a Sky fanboi so you may as well accept it. After all they are winning stage races just like all the other dopers have in the past. "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:mididoctors wrote:Not a big fan of sky or froome myself but I am not seeing the doping angle as of yet
About sums me up too.
Same here, feeling most sensible people taking the view that Sky aren't definately clean but lets give them the benifit of the doubt until some more solid evidence come to light (by which I mean positive tests/ stuff for drug taking/ witness statements come to light, not guesses of power output or what is humanly possible).
I do think that questions should continue to be asked though. Like it or not cycling has a dodgy past so the questions are reasonable (even if I think asking them straight after the stage is a bit much, let the rider have time to enjoy the moment before asking if they're a fraud).0
This discussion has been closed.
