Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
the thing I don't understand is HTF is Froome still in the jersey after stage 9"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
-
Much the same as Indurain after 20 years with the "I think so" and the Bus spotters.mididoctors wrote:
the charge of hypocrisy stands on that issue but the "I saw him dope" story has yet to emergeOrganiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
mididoctors wrote:the thing I don't understand is HTF is Froome still in the jersey after stage 9
Movistar didn't take enough of the happy pills after Sky left theirs in the hotel :roll:
Seriously I think Movistar and Saxo-Tinkoff missed a trick that day and Froome got a bit lucky. On the other hand without sidewinds not sure how they could have lost Froome anyway.0 -
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/07/news/contador-says-froome-is-riding-clean-enjoying-fruits-of-the-work-he-puts-in_295260
That might cause a certain poster of this parish some cognitive dissonance"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 -
Runtothehills wrote: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 definitely 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).
This is also my position.**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.0
-
So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.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 . .
Nope, firstly you said there was only testimony, not evidence. Now you are saying that there is evidence but it only came out years after, even though L'Equipe proved his blood and urine samples were positive the day after his 7th victory.
You need to get your story straight brother bear
0 -
mididoctors wrote:the thing I don't understand is HTF is Froome still in the jersey after stage 9
Do you really need it spelled out? Sky struggled on stage 9, the next day was a rest day and suddenly they are all fine again (well, other than on a pan flat stage on Friday of course). By comparison those lilly white riders such as Contador and Valverde blew themselves apart in the effort they made. What hope have such clean riders got?0 -
mididoctors wrote: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.
He's got you bang to rights there. Very good expose of your circular argument.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?"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 -
binkybike wrote:So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.
That's pretty much the long and the short of it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?
Yes, but they didn't clearly label him "doping doctor", not even in the ALT tag for the image. Cunning.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
deejay wrote:
Much the same as Indurain after 20 years with the "I think so" and the Bus spotters.mididoctors wrote:
the charge of hypocrisy stands on that issue but the "I saw him dope" story has yet to emerge
A different time, a different place.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
There's absolutely nothing a clean rider can say that hasn't already been said by a doped one.
Froome should just say he doesn't trust journalists, so he's not giving them any info.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?
Yes, but they didn't clearly label him "doping doctor", not even in the ALT tag for the image. Cunning.
They are a tricky bunch, aren't they?"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 -
Coming into this Tour I wasn't a huge Froome fan, but I have to say, this sh*tstorm around Froome and Sky is pretty absurd. I definitely feel a bit sorry for him and I'll be rooting for him that bit more now. And if he is popped tomorrow/next week/month/year, then he's the mug not me.0
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?
From The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -fans.html
"Which brings us neatly to Team Sky and Geert Leinders. On Tuesday, Sky announced that it would no longer work with the former Rabobank doctor after conducting an investigation into his controversial past. By then, however, he had been employed on an informal basis since late 2010.
The fact that Leinders’ hiring was not made public for over a year, and was not interrogated about his doping history until well after he began working with Sky, create the very haze of suspicion that cycling needs to shed."
But I am sure they did no research and it was just a lie.0 -
It's true. Froome wasn't getting GT podiums while he was in nappies, therefore Sky are doping. Or something.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
Wiggo's results showed what he was capable of even before Wiggo joined Sky, let alone Leinders. Remember 2009? Yes, he was a bit lucky in the way the race panned out, and at the time it was tempting to call it a freak result, but look at the guys who beat him. Put that engine into a team built around him with the sole aim of letting him diesel up the climbs at a pace he was comfortable with, and training dedicated to that aim, and it's no surprise that he did well.N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
binkybike wrote:So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.
Either confused or shit shoveling shit like other sky fans.0 -
LA Confidentiel was published in 2004. Huge chunks of the USADA report were already in that book.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 .Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rundfahrt wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?
From The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -fans.html
"Which brings us neatly to Team Sky and Geert Leinders. On Tuesday, Sky announced that it would no longer work with the former Rabobank doctor after conducting an investigation into his controversial past. By then, however, he had been employed on an informal basis since late 2010.
The fact that Leinders’ hiring was not made public for over a year, and was not interrogated about his doping history until well after he began working with Sky, create the very haze of suspicion that cycling needs to shed."
But I am sure they did no research and it was just a lie.
HIs name and picture was on the Sky website the entire time he worked for them. How is that a secret? Unless you can provide me with an example of a different pro team mounting a publicity campaign for the hiring of their new backroom staff? Garmin worked with Allan Lim who was Floyd Landis' personal coach, are you equally outraged about that?
Also, Jonathon Lieuw writes regularly with little or no knowledge about football, cycling, cricket and tennis. His main area of expertise as a TV critic."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 -
Contador says Froome is no doper and that he believes his victories have come from an exceptional amount of hard work. (couldn't find a link but it's in the telegraph).
Frenchie won't be happy.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:binkybike wrote:So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.
That's pretty much the long and the short of it.
Excellent, I am glad I sorted that out, now I'm going to try and fathom why I like Laurens tem Dam so much, maybe i am just a sucker for a good name0 -
Which report was that? I don't recall one from before 2004. Thanks.RichN95 wrote:
LA Confidentiel was published in 2004. Huge chunks of the USADA report were already in that book.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 .0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:binkybike wrote:So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.
Either confused or shoot shoveling shoot like other sky fans.
Excellent. An inaccurate personal insult from someone on the internet. This has cheered me up no end.0 -
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
Froome had only ridden three Grand Tour prior to joining Sky and was DQd in one of them. He managed 34th in the Giro riding for what was a pretty weak team. Now I'm no cycling historian but I'm pretty sure I recall Wiggins coming 4th (effectively 3rd post LA) in the 2009 Tour whilst at Garmin who even chief cynic Kimmage appears to accept is a clean team and that was after going into the race as nothing more than a support rider. Hardly a surprise that with a whole team and big budget dedicated to a single goal that he was subsequently able to win the Tour in what many of his detractors insisted pointing out was a Tour route suited to him and one of the weakest fields in recent years.0 -
hasbeen wrote: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 . .
Nope, firstly you said there was only testimony, not evidence. Now you are saying that there is evidence but it only came out years after, even though L'Equipe proved his blood and urine samples were positive the day after his 7th victory.
You need to get your story straight brother bear
The fact that Armstrong has now admitted dopin, it seems that the test in question could now be validated for using peds at the time. Before he admitted doping it was his word against some members of the press and they could not prove a thing . So it only becomes evidence once he has admitted doping. We can see in retrospect that the UCI made a bad call or did not want Armstrong to get caught. Lets not get to off topic.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Yes they got rid of him...after the media began calling them on it. After keeping his hiring quiet for at least a year. After claiming to be zero tolerance but not vetting a new hire like any company would do to meet company policies. When they began Sky fans were claiming there was no proof that Leinders was involved in doping, yet info on him was available all over the web. Then when he was let go after a lot of pressure, they touted it as proof of sky being clean. Sky also has a former member of the doped Rabobank squad currently.
By putting his name and picture on their website?
From The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -fans.html
"Which brings us neatly to Team Sky and Geert Leinders. On Tuesday, Sky announced that it would no longer work with the former Rabobank doctor after conducting an investigation into his controversial past. By then, however, he had been employed on an informal basis since late 2010.
The fact that Leinders’ hiring was not made public for over a year, and was not interrogated about his doping history until well after he began working with Sky, create the very haze of suspicion that cycling needs to shed."
But I am sure they did no research and it was just a lie.
HIs name and picture was on the Sky website the entire time he worked for them. How is that a secret? Unless you can provide me with an example of a different pro team mounting a publicity campaign for the hiring of their new backroom staff? Garmin worked with Allan Lim who was Floyd Landis' personal coach, are you equally outraged about that?
Also, Jonathon Lieuw writes regularly with little or no knowledge about football, cycling, cricket and tennis. His main area of expertise as a TV critic.
Can you prove it? I have written statements backing me up you have something you are claiming as fact. Maybe now you'll see the difference between posting an opinion (like mine about sky recovering from getting blown up) and posting as fact. It sucks when someone uses your own tactic against you doesn't it!
Oh, I love the very postal fan use of discrediting the writer in order to maintain you blind view!
I'll be outraged about Lim when I see something come out like happened with Leinders. I am suspicious because he worked with Landis, but it's tempered due to his work with Garmin and Vaughters.0 -
binkybike wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:binkybike wrote:So. Have i got this right?
Basically, if you are not convinced that Sky are doping you are a one-eyed fanboy who is completely out of touch with reality? yes?
Also, because Armstrong fans also didn't believe that Lance was doping and Sky "fans" don't believe Sky are doping... therefore Sky are doping? yes? Because the Lance Fans where wrong, the Sky ones must be too. (even if you are a not a Sky fan, ALTHOUGH you are because you don't believe Sky are doping, don't forget)
Yes?
I might be confused though.
Either confused or shoot shoveling shoot like other sky fans.
Excellent. An inaccurate personal insult from someone on the internet. This has cheered me up no end.
There was no personal insult, simply a comment on your question about your very obvious post. If you want to personal attacks look at sky fans responses.0
This discussion has been closed.
