Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

thomthom

The earth is not round btw

RichN95.

ThomThom wrote:

The earth is not round btw

It's smoother than a snooker ball, though.

RichN95.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

There was a time "scientists" claimed the world was flat and that the sailors who said otherwise were poorly educated idiots.

That's not actually true. There's no record of anyone serious ever thinking it was flat. Even the ancient greeks knew it was round.
The idea that people used to think it was flat stems from a song by George Gershwin.

slim_boy_fat

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

The earth is not round btw

It's smoother than a snooker ball, though.

Indeed, I love hitting people with that fact.

goonz

ThomThom wrote:

The earth is not round btw

Please stay on topic...

RichN95.

goonz wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

The earth is not round btw

Please stay on topic...

OK. Chris Froome is less round than he used to be.

Paulie W

RichN95 wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

There was a time "scientists" claimed the world was flat and that the sailors who said otherwise were poorly educated idiots.

That's not actually true. There's no record of anyone serious ever thinking it was flat. Even the ancient greeks knew it was round.

I know that's not really the point here but that's not really true of the ancient Greeks - plenty of flat earthers among the pre-Socratic philosophers!

rayjay

goonz wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

They will cheat they will dope . So lets let them and lets let them do it safely rather than end up like Rico nearly dead. As for listing all the possible effects of a drug. There can be horrid side effects from just taking asprin etc etc. If you read the possible effect of any drug and thought that could happen to you, you would not take.

While we're at it why not legalise all drugs?

Why not? No dealers , no addicts going round stealing or mugging to get a fix. No dodgy stuff that can kill. Safe places where addicts are off the streets and not leaving there needles lying around lets take control.

Paulie W

rayjay wrote:

goonz wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

They will cheat they will dope . So lets let them and lets let them do it safely rather than end up like Rico nearly dead. As for listing all the possible effects of a drug. There can be horrid side effects from just taking asprin etc etc. If you read the possible effect of any drug and thought that could happen to you, you would not take.

While we're at it why not legalise all drugs?

Why not? No dealers , no addicts going round stealing or mugging to get a fix. No dodgy stuff that can kill. Safe places where addicts are off the streets and not leaving there needles lying around lets take control.

Jesus, let's not take this thread into that debate!!

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

He has no evidence. Just a load of figures and an opinion that can be read anyway you want to read it. i.e. you want to believe Sky are clean and some of us have our suspicions. These Same things could have been said when Armstrong was winning and from the fall out there are a lot of upset fans who feel they were duped." Shock pro athlete dopes " of course they do ,they want to win and if you were in that position how do you know you would not dope? Most in cycling do and have , take a look .

mrushton

Cycling, athletics, swimming take your pick. Anywhere where money is involved someone will look for an opportunity be it doping or fixing

rayjay

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

They will cheat they will dope . So lets let them and lets let them do it safely rather than end up like Rico nearly dead. As for listing all the possible effects of a drug. There can be horrid side effects from just taking asprin etc etc. If you read the possible effect of any drug and thought that could happen to you, you would not take.

Approvied drug taking would be the death of the sport.

All we'd end up with are "safe" dopers riding alongside the "unsafe" dopers who would take risks to gain an advantage and of course win via this advantage. The sport would be no more fair than it is now. More riders would be dead though.

WHy would any parent support their child in junior racing if that was the outcome, also?

Wake up to the realities of pro sport. Thats what a lot of athletes do. We don't live in a sugar coated world. You have to make a choice.
Lets make legal so we can make it as safe as we can, It sure ain't working as it is. I am a parent, 2 boys.

above_the_cows

rayjay, do you actually watch any cycling, only you don't seem to want to comment on the actual racing? Are you actually interested in the racing at all?

Paulie W

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

slim_boy_fat

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

Off course it will. 'Ok guys, you can dope, but only to safe levels.' Dirty cheating cyclists dope to unsafe levels to gain an advantage over the rest. Completely stupid idea.

ddraver

nweststeyn wrote:

Some people on this thread (im looking at both viewpoints here) need to read this book on basic scientific practise and the manipulation of data.

Good call - good book!

ddraver

rayjay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

He has no evidence. Just a load of figures and an opinion that can be read anyway you want to read it. i.e. you want to believe Sky are clean and some of us have our suspicions. These Same things could have been said when Armstrong was winning and from the fall out there are a lot of upset fans who feel they were duped." Shock pro athlete dopes " of course they do ,they want to win and if you were in that position how do you know you would not dope? Most in cycling do and have , take a look .

Rick does nt need any becasue he's not making any claims (although he's been helped today by l'Equipe), you are claiming that Froome is doping (and please don't do the "i'm only suspicious" rubbish, that's so lame), therefore YOU DO NEED evidence.

A) I don't give the tiniest monekys twhat was said when armstrong was winning, he is irrelevant and C) (sic) That's absoloute rubbish becasue when Armstrong was winning we had the Andreu's, Emma, Backdated TUE's, positive EPO tests etc etc. Stop trying to change history!

Right this has gone round in circles too many times now, I'm out and you re on ze list, be a dear and PM me if you ever find any evidence will you?

rob churchill

ddraver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

ddraver you like to present an image of scientific maturity but your seemingly intransigent position that sky is clean is clouding your critical abilities. There was a time "scientists" claimed the world was flat and that the sailors who said otherwise were poorly educated idiots.

the truth is the whole sports been built with PED abuse in its DNA, its everywhere. Its still a magnificent spectacle.

And Contador is definitely the most exciting GT racer of several generations.

PS ROCK ON Buddy

Show me the evidence...Sky have today and it suggests that Froome is clean. 3 years I ve been waiting for some evidence that theyre doping. I can show you evidence that the world is round, see -


Seriously I ve been asked twice this morning to back up what I think. I really cannot understand people who think that its shutting down debate or trolling to ask for evidence! When I write reports at work I state explicitly what the observations are, what they might mean and then say what my interpretation is.

The doping fans are making wild accusations, they need to back them up

As for the fanboi nonsense, I think that's the fourth time this year i ve switched from being called a jealous Sky hater to a blind Sky Fanboi...which says it all really

You're wasting your time. There comes a point when you have to recognise that there is simply no common ground on which to have a discussion with some people, no shared principles that make meaningful communication possible. That point is reached when they come out with something like the 'scientists once said the earth was flat' crap above. If you know that you could present the most solid, research based evidence imaginable and the other person will airily dismiss it with a wave of the hand saying "Oh, science - you can prove anything with science" then what's the point?

Vino'sGhost

ddraver wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Everything you have said I could say the exact opposite

The whole tread could be summed up by this next sentence - Rick has evidence for what he says, you do not

ddraver you like to present an image of scientific maturity but your seemingly intransigent position that sky is clean is clouding your critical abilities. There was a time "scientists" claimed the world was flat and that the sailors who said otherwise were poorly educated idiots.

the truth is the whole sports been built with PED abuse in its DNA, its everywhere. Its still a magnificent spectacle.

And Contador is definitely the most exciting GT racer of several generations.

PS ROCK ON Buddy

Show me the evidence...Sky have today and it suggests that Froome is clean. 3 years I ve been waiting for some evidence that theyre doping. I can show you evidence that the world is round, see -


Seriously I ve been asked twice this morning to back up what I think. I really cannot understand people who think that its shutting down debate or trolling to ask for evidence! When I write reports at work I state explicitly what the observations are, what they might mean and then say what my interpretation is.

The doping fans are making wild accusations, they need to back them up

As for the fanboi nonsense, I think that's the fourth time this year i ve switched from being called a jealous Sky hater to a blind Sky Fanboi...which says it all really

that is a 2d image it shows the world is circular. pfft as a scientist id have expected better. it also shows you interpret evidence to suit your position.

rob churchill

rayjay wrote:

blah blah blah ... As for listing all the possible effects of a drug. There can be horrid side effects from just taking asprin etc etc. If you read the possible effect of any drug and thought that could happen to you, you would not take. blah blah blah.

You said that EPO should be legalised because, unlike steroids, it's safe. The evidence you presented for your assertion that EPO is safer than steroids was that you had never heard of anyone dying from it*

Other posters here immediately pointed out that EPO was put on the banned list following a rash of deaths among athletes which were linked to the drug. I provided evidence from an authoritative source that clinical trials link EPO to excess mortality, particularly when used to push blood values beyond usual levels - which is precisely how athletes use it.

You are therefore shown to be wrong.

You cannot counter the evidence with evidence of your own, so instead you dismiss it. You make a silly comment about all drugs having side-effects. I am a healthcare professional with 25 years experience and I can tell the difference between the level of risk associated with aspirin and the level of risk associated with EPO. I know that MHRA/CHM advice is for clinicians to carefully balance the risks and benefits before prescribing this powerful drug, to avoid using it if alternatives such as blood transfusion are available, and not to use it to correct anaemias unless the anaemia is actually causing real problems for the patient. Maybe you can't tell the difference: that's fine, but perhaps you might then refrain from pretending you can and declaring one drug to be safer than another?

You whine about not being allowed your own opinion. You are allowed your own opinion, you're not allowed your own facts.

* this is technically known as the argument from complete, total, and utter ignorance.

jamie1012

Well, whether or not they're doping, they certainly do enjoy a nice illegal feed.

PBo

Quintana beat Froome by a lot today.

This therefore proves that Movistar are definitely doping, and Sky need to get their money back if they are!!!

Oh no, wait - it means that Sky deliberately soft pedalled to allay suspicion!

jamie1012

PBo wrote:

Quintana beat Froome by a lot today.

This therefore proves that Movistar are definitely doping, and Sky need to get their money back if they are!!!

Oh no, wait - it means that Sky deliberately soft pedalled to allay suspicion!

A bonk's a bonk. Could happen to anyone, doper or not

ugo.santalucia

I timed Quintana at just under 40 minutes for the second ascent... kind of acceptable... they're probably cleanish... including SKY.... :shock:

r0bh

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I timed Quintana at just under 40 minutes for the second ascent... kind of acceptable... they're probably cleanish... including SKY.... :shock:

I'm sure they'll be delighted that you find their performances acceptable

above_the_cows

jamie1012 wrote:

Well, whether or not they're doping, they certainly do enjoy a nice illegal feed.

Don't we all, the only way I can watch the cycling at work.

goonz

Above The Cows wrote:

jamie1012 wrote:

Well, whether or not they're doping, they certainly do enjoy a nice illegal feed.

Don't we all, the only way I can watch the cycling at work.

Very good!

rayjay

Above The Cows wrote:

rayjay, do you actually watch any cycling, only you don't seem to want to comment on the actual racing? Are you actually interested in the racing at all?

Whats the title of this thread ? Do I watch any cycling ? Sky should lose 5mins for food cheating ha ha

rayjay

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

what do you mean escalation of doping . Do you read the sports pages ?
I say lets get control, lets make it safe. If you don't want to take then you don't or leave things as they are and do nothing but make rules that won't stop sh%t. At least if we make it legal and controlled it might stop some of the deaths and near deaths tha occur. If someone wants to go crazy with drugs you are not going to stop them anyway and not catch them . Most athletes don't get caught. FACT.

disgruntledgoat

rayjay wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Even if you believe that the non-doping professional athlete is the exception - that virtually all successful sportmen/women are doping - this argument doesnt stand up. How exactly do you make it 'safe'? By limiting what atheletes can take and in what quantities? But wont the really ambitious (and/or stupid) people simply find a way around that and take what they want in whatever quantities they want. Legalising 'doping' - whatever the hell that means anyway - will likely lead to an escalation of doping.

what do you mean escalation of doping . Do you read the sports pages ?
I say lets get control, lets make it safe. If you don't want to take then you don't or leave things as they are and do nothing but make rules that won't stop sh%t. At least if we make it legal and controlled it might stop some of the deaths and near deaths tha occur. If someone wants to go crazy with drugs you are not going to stop them anyway and not catch them . Most athletes don't get caught. FACT.

Can you point me to a death or near death of an athlete thanks to doping since Ricardo Ricco?