Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not
Comments
-
ddraver, I'm beginning to think you are the one talking about doping the most in here..?0
-
Slim Boy Fat wrote:davidof wrote:mfin wrote:I thought everyone on here would have a bike computer pretty much, and go out on familiar routes. Has it never struck some of these people that you comparing speeds with a headwind/will/tailwind takes a couple of glances to see it has massive effect.
The Ventoux is a windy beast as we know, and yesterday, apparently, so it keeps being said, there was a tailwind... I can't remember the last time I watched the Ventoux and it was clearly said there was a tailwind, but there's normally lots of talk of the difficulty of the conditions.
A lot of the times/VAM calculations don't mean anything comparing to most years.
Surely most people have ridden along into a wind thinking 'christ, Im only going 18mph along here I usually go 25' or 'I usually go 20 along here, and am holding 27 with no bother at all'.
I just don't think yesterday's times tell us anything but that there was a good tailwind, as a lot of people went up fast.
The wind was coming from the West, the climb above the trees is predominantly to the North West so it was a cross wind but not helpful. This photo shows this quite clearly
Below the tree line the climb is to the East the North but the trees shelter a lot of the wind.
How about we all believe someone who actually rode the thing?“@Greghenderson1: Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.”
It's interesting that you should post that response when the picture posted clearly shows two things:
1) the course going in two very different directions.
2) one of which into at least an angled head wind.0 -
ddraver wrote:No proper evidence....
Interesting response to the Leinders discussion. Especially considering that, using the same criteria, there was no "proper evidence" of Armstrong doping while he was riding before his first retirement. All we heard were accusations, hearsay and innuendo...the same as was heard, if you perused more cycling sites then just this one.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No proper evidence....
Interesting response to the Leinders discussion. Especially considering that, using the same criteria, there was no "proper evidence" of Armstrong doping while he was riding before his first retirement. All we heard were accusations, hearsay and innuendo...the same as was heard, if you perused more cycling sites then just this one.
You don't think there's a difference between 'accusations, hearsay and innuendo' from ex team mates and back room staff and the same coming from random Internet nobodies then? Show me Sky's Betsy Andreu or Bassons.0 -
-
-
This thread seems to have taken a dog leg into moon landing conspiracy theory territory.0
-
Pross wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:ddraver wrote:No proper evidence....
Interesting response to the Leinders discussion. Especially considering that, using the same criteria, there was no "proper evidence" of Armstrong doping while he was riding before his first retirement. All we heard were accusations, hearsay and innuendo...the same as was heard, if you perused more cycling sites then just this one.
You don't think there's a difference between 'accusations, hearsay and innuendo' from ex team mates and back room staff and the same coming from random Internet nobodies then? Show me Sky's Betsy Andreu or Bassons.
Hiring doctors known for doping, then claiming you didn't know (when most cycling forums knew) and admitting you did not vet him to meet your zero doping standards. I would say that was just as big as the crazy woman (my personal non-Armstrong related experience with her being why I call her that) saying she heard something.0 -
Interesting tweets from Kimmage this morning(not a big fan of his because I think he is a hypocrite, going after the riders and putting the blame on them while in his book he blames the teams)
@PaulKimmage: Froome on Ventoux? Call me Dumbo: "I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, I saw a needle that winked its eye. But I think I will have..
@PaulKimmage: ...seen everything when I see an elephant fly."0 -
Have we all said enough on the matter yet?
Every time I log on this thread goes red because someone reported it.
The only reason it's still alive is to take some of the terrible chat away from other threads.
You lot all behave, chill out, stop taking things personally and only make your point ONCE, or I'm going to get liberal and hefty with the ban hammer, alright?
I know we're all giddy cos it's the Tour and it's a Brit in yellow but you all need to relax.
If someone disgrees with you that's ok. If someone thinks you're talking rubbish that's ok. We all talk rubbish. It's the Internet.. You probably think they're talking rubbish anyway so it doesn't actually matter.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:davidof wrote:mfin wrote:I thought everyone on here would have a bike computer pretty much, and go out on familiar routes. Has it never struck some of these people that you comparing speeds with a headwind/will/tailwind takes a couple of glances to see it has massive effect.
The Ventoux is a windy beast as we know, and yesterday, apparently, so it keeps being said, there was a tailwind... I can't remember the last time I watched the Ventoux and it was clearly said there was a tailwind, but there's normally lots of talk of the difficulty of the conditions.
A lot of the times/VAM calculations don't mean anything comparing to most years.
Surely most people have ridden along into a wind thinking 'christ, Im only going 18mph along here I usually go 25' or 'I usually go 20 along here, and am holding 27 with no bother at all'.
I just don't think yesterday's times tell us anything but that there was a good tailwind, as a lot of people went up fast.
The wind was coming from the West, the climb above the trees is predominantly to the North West so it was a cross wind but not helpful. This photo shows this quite clearly
Below the tree line the climb is to the East the North but the trees shelter a lot of the wind.
How about we all believe someone who actually rode the thing?“@Greghenderson1: Tailwind up the whole climb helped my watts per kilo guys so don't go getting too impressed by my time up Ventoux.”
It's interesting that you should post that response when the picture posted clearly shows two things:
1) the course going in two very different directions.
2) one of which into at least an angled head wind.
So the flags show that the wind is coming from the left and behind (from the photographer's perspective). Agreed?
In case you haven't ridden the climb, the ~6km section of the climb from Chalet Reynard to that point is predominantly with the wind (as was yesterday). The headwind section you can see (i.e. the stretch looking forward in the picture) is only about 500m long. Before the Chalet the road runs through the trees where wind direction is largely irrelevant.
Add to that the various eyewitness accounts reporting a significant tailwind and I would hope that we could possibly agree that the wind did in fact favour the riders yesterday.
That all said, the direction of the wind neither proves the Sky riders dope or do not dope. No-one on this forum knows the answer to that question.0 -
Looking at the flag in the center of the photo, it appears to be close to a 90 degree angle with the camera, but I'll say it's a bit more for arguments sake. Looking at a map of the climb from the Chalet and seeing the finish in the photo that would make the wind, as seen in the picture, a cross wind. Down near the chalet the first hairpin would be into a complete headwind.
It just makes me wonder what occurred to make eyewitness reports so completely different then photographic evidence.
It is funny how the wind proves nothing, yet one of the big defenses around her of his time was that it was a tailwind. It's also funny how you say no one on this forum knows if the Sky riders doped or not, yet the defender are acting like they know, while I am merely voicing suspicion.0 -
I genuinely think you are missing the point here (no criticism)... as far as I can tell there are two distinct camps:Rundfahrt wrote:It's also funny how you say no one on this forum knows if the Sky riders doped or not, yet the defender are acting like they know, while I am merely voicing suspicion.
1) Those that think Sky are definitely doping
2) Those that don't truly know whether Sky are doping, but on the available evidence are prepared (for now) to give them the benefit of the doubt
I believe you'd put yourself in group 1 - an opinion you are perfectly entitled to have. Personally I'm in group 2.
As far as I've read you are raging against a third group that are convinced Sky are definitely not doping. I don't think that group 3 really exists on this forum... if anyone wants to fight that corner I'd be inclined to question their reasoning as much as I would question a group 1-er's.
So let's run a poll - where is everyone:
Group 1, 2 or 3?0 -
I hate all this talk about Sky doping because it detracts from the enjoyment of the terrific achievement British cycling and Sky have made in the past 10 years starting with Olympic track golds and culminating with Wiggo's GC victory last year and Froomie dominating the field this year - we should be immensely proud of that - hence Dave B accepted a knighthood.
Would Dave B be so silly as to kneel in front of the queen knowing that in 3 years time he would be disgraced and vilified by the nation and media as well as the cycling world if found guilty of leading a doping campaign? How many gold medals would come into question, how many world's and bike races would be re-examined, how many riders would be smeared simply because they had a great race whilst with Sky? Imagine Cav being called into question because of his 25 stage wins?
We know who the doping teams are, the managers, the riders from time past. Dave B has stated 100 times over the years the whole ethic of Sky was to race clean. That's good enough for me.
Finally - SKY could not afford further bad publicity if they were suddenly linked to what would become the greatest cycling scandal ever. You think they don't undertake ongoing due diligence?
Think it through, Sky are clean, they have no choice.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
nic_77 wrote:
I genuinely think you are missing the point here (no criticism)... as far as I can tell there are two distinct camps:Rundfahrt wrote:It's also funny how you say no one on this forum knows if the Sky riders doped or not, yet the defender are acting like they know, while I am merely voicing suspicion.
1) Those that think Sky are definitely doping
2) Those that don't truly know whether Sky are doping, but on the available evidence are prepared (for now) to give them the benefit of the doubt
I believe you'd put yourself in group 1 - an opinion you are perfectly entitled to have. Personally I'm in group 2.
As far as I've read you are raging against a third group that are convinced Sky are definitely not doping. I don't think that group 3 really exists on this forum... if anyone wants to fight that corner I'd be inclined to question their reasoning as much as I would question a group 1-er's.
So let's run a poll - where is everyone:
Group 1, 2 or 3?
Group 4. Doesn't give a monkeys.0 -
nic_77 wrote:
I genuinely think you are missing the point here (no criticism)... as far as I can tell there are two distinct camps:Rundfahrt wrote:It's also funny how you say no one on this forum knows if the Sky riders doped or not, yet the defender are acting like they know, while I am merely voicing suspicion.
1) Those that think Sky are definitely doping
2) Those that don't truly know whether Sky are doping, but on the available evidence are prepared (for now) to give them the benefit of the doubt
I believe you'd put yourself in group 1 - an opinion you are perfectly entitled to have. Personally I'm in group 2.
As far as I've read you are raging against a third group that are convinced Sky are definitely not doping. I don't think that group 3 really exists on this forum... if anyone wants to fight that corner I'd be inclined to question their reasoning as much as I would question a group 1-er's.
So let's run a poll - where is everyone:
Group 1, 2 or 3?
Group 2 for me0 -
Group 2 for me until someone comes up with some entirely convincing evidence to put me in group 1 or 3.0
-
ddraver wrote:Richard Moore @richardmoore73
Hearing rumours that Team Sky are using a new, undetectable drug from Czech Republic called Cake. #alarming
Retro, but made me giggle...
It's not funny Raver!! Cake ruins lives, here's a big expose!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZgg7o91EWU0 -
Group 2 all the way.
I'm not bothered at all that there are people that are in group 1, I just get frustrated hearing that I can only be in group 2 because I'm a Sky fan boy, a noob to cycling and am as blind as the Armstrong defenders who ignored all the testimonies, backdated TUEs, behavior towards clean riders and whistle blowers and dare I say it, The Graph.
Opinion is fine, we can agree to differ, just please don't try and paint me as a moron. Personal attacks aren't looked highly upon here, but crass generalizations used to denigrate people without naming them tend to slip under the radar. I'm more offended by the latter than someone calling me a pr1ck or similar.
Peace and love and goodwill to all mankind, the ecosphere and the universe in general sort of thing.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I missed the Ventoux stage unfortunately because of prior commitments and only caught the highlights last night. It was absolutely mental seeing Froome spin up and shoot away from Bertie like that, but I didn't think it looked suspicious by any means at all.
It's obvious to anyone that these attacks has been trained for all year by Sky, they must know that for any given distance and altitude/incline etc CF can spin up and accelerate for a given time/distance at a given power. That's all there is to it, nothing magical at all, just good management and good training.
I can't believe everyones first inclination is "he must be doping to do that", it's pretty sad and pretty unimaginative to say the least.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Hiring doctors known for doping, then claiming you didn't know (when most cycling forums knew) and admitting you did not vet him to meet your zero doping standards. I would say that was just as big as the crazy woman (my personal non-Armstrong related experience with her being why I call her that) saying she heard something.
They did?
I think you'll find that they didn't.
Even the Clinic hadn't a clue.
Not a peep until the Rasmussen testimony.
Just before last year's Tour."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
ThomThom wrote:
Off Topic
I suspect you re just being miserable again rather than looking for an answer but I ll give you one anyway
The topic combines 2 of my passions, cycling and science. When I'm not listening to cycling podcasts, I enjoy "sceptic" or "rational" podcasts that talk about how much science is attacked, missused and abused by people like creationists, homeopathists, chiropracters and their ilk.
I'm fairly ambivalent about Sky if I'm talking to a human. I'm British and I want the British team to win but I'm realistic enough to know that Team GB are not above cheating (Brain Moore, Richard Hill, Stuart Broad, Linford Christie, Dwayne Chambers, Christine Ohurugu (sp?), John Terry etc), however when I read the absolute rubbish that is spouted by the Doping fanbois it offends both the scientist and the cyclist parts of me. When you combine my two passions I can go on a bit. You may remember a certain Trev the Rev who used be the absolute worst at this, He was someone that I could never ever let go (Rayjay and Rundy can only aspire to misuse science like that guy could!)
All I ve ever done is asked Rundy (and RayJay, Trev etc) to provide some evidence for their claims. For this I ve been labelled a blind fanboi, been called a liar and insulted for 3 years. You be the judge...
When someone shows me some evidence, shows me Sky's Emma O'Reilly, shows me Frooome's backdated TUE, his retrospective positive samples at a Swiss Lab, a slew of team mates testifying that Brailsford forced them to dope or I dunno even just a positive dope test, then I ll reconsider my position (Group 2)
Still waiting....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
No comment. Just posting for info.Contador is the Greatest0 -
ddraver wrote:ThomThom wrote:
Off Topic
I suspect you re just being miserable again rather than looking for an answer but I ll give you one anyway
The topic combines 2 of my passions, cycling and science. When I'm not listening to cycling podcasts, I enjoy "sceptic" or "rational" podcasts that talk about how much science is attacked, missused and abused by people like creationists, homeopathists, chiropracters and their ilk.
I'm fairly ambivalent about Sky if I'm talking to a human. I'm British and I want the British team to win but I'm realistic enough to know that Team GB are not above cheating (Brain Moore, Richard Hill, Stuart Broad, Linford Christie, Dwayne Chambers, Christine Ohurugu (sp?), John Terry etc), however when I read the absolute rubbish that is spouted by the Doping fanbois it offends both the scientist and the cyclist parts of me. When you combine my two passions I can go on a bit. You may remember a certain Trev the Rev who used be the absolute worst at this, He was someone that I could never ever let go (Rayjay and Rundy can only aspire to misuse science like that guy could!)
All I ve ever done is asked Rundy (and RayJay, Trev etc) to provide some evidence for their claims. For this I ve been labelled a blind fanboi, been called a liar and insulted for 3 years. You be the judge...
When someone shows me some evidence, shows me Sky's Emma O'Reilly, shows me Frooome's backdated TUE, his retrospective positive samples at a Swiss Lab, a slew of team mates testifying that Brailsford forced them to dope or I dunno even just a positive dope test, then I ll reconsider my position (Group 2)
Still waiting....
Didn't want to post on this thread, but ddraver, I support everything you say.0 -
So I reckon the answer is this. The other teams need to do intervals. Really, really hard ones. Often. I reckon that will then take them from also-rans to GT ETs too. I`m surprised they
If Froome as a base rider is just a bit above average and the `Training` he does has turned him into the Kenyan Konkerer I strongly suggest the other teams who hold much better natural talent then Sky follow suit. They can race the same way just be faster when it matters.Contador is the Greatest0 -
cyclingsheep wrote:Bloody hell, that's Froome? You could fit two of the current version in that guy......no wonder he's going up hill faster
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12925884&hilit=rouleur&start=120#p18410467Contador is the Greatest0 -
This discussion has been closed.
