Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

afx237vi

ddraver wrote:

Ah but I think the doping soap opera is the only part of that entertainment for many UK/US cycling fans - Sky are their Dirty Den

FTFY.

There was a beautiful period of tranquillity between 2006 and 2010 (Floyd aside) when people mostly stopped bickering and just watched the frickin's racing. In the immortal words of EBH, it was nice.

ddraver

Hand on heart if I'd shown you a picture of Bauke Mollema before today, could you have named him?

"Erm he's that Dutch bloke that isnt Johnny Hoogerland, he's upright on the bike so it can't be Gesink and isnt ugely enough to be Ten Dam....."

that bloke even beat Contador today, bet most of us couldnt have pronounced his name properly...

ddraver

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Ah but I think the doping soap opera is a major part of that entertainment for many UK/US cycling fans - Sky are their Dirty Den

oh get back to the clinic

the clinic is their Womans Own magazine...

RichN95.

afx237vi wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Ah but I think the doping soap opera is the only part of that entertainment for many UK/US cycling fans - Sky are their Dirty Den

FTFY.

There was a beautiful period of tranquillity between 2006 and 2010 (Floyd aside) when people mostly stopped bickering and just watched the frickin's racing. In the immortal words of EBH, it was nice.

Recent Tours de France as reviewed by EBH:

2006: Bad
2007: Sad
2008: Good
2009: Nice
2010: Nice but bad
2011: Sad and good
2012: Great

cogidubnus

Rich somes it up for me better than I could.

If Contador, Evans, Schleck, Ryder, Tejay et al are going to finish behind Mollema, Ten Dam and Nieve then that says alot about their lack of form rather than Sky dope

dougzz

Cogidubnus wrote:

Rich somes it up for me better than I could.
If Contador, Evans, Schleck, Ryder, Tejay et al are going to finish behind Mollema, Ten Dam and Nieve then that says alot about their lack of form rather than Sky dope

Or it might say a lack of dope rather than Sky's form.

ddraver

Stolen that for a tweet - thanks bud!

Edit - Cogi's stuff, not dougs

cogidubnus

So are you saying Euskatel and Belkin are doped up to their eyeballs and Saxo, BMC etc aren't?

If anything it suggests to me that everything is cleaner, Contader sans dope can't hang with decent climbers

cogidubnus

no probs ddraver

RichN95.

Cogidubnus wrote:

So are you saying Euskatel and Belkin are doped up to their eyeballs and Saxo, BMC etc aren't?

If anything it suggests to me that everything is cleaner, Contader sans dope can't hang with decent climbers

I bow to no-one on this forum in my dislike for Contador, but there was clearly something more wrong than that - just like the Dauphine TT. I think he'll win a stage and he'll try something massive in the Alps (may not succeed)

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

[/quote]

Best kind.

dougzz

Cogidubnus wrote:

So are you saying Euskatel and Belkin are doped up to their eyeballs and Saxo, BMC etc aren't?
If anything it suggests to me that everything is cleaner, Contader sans dope can't hang with decent climbers

If you meant me I was being flippant, although I think 2 of your 5 named drop off in form is related to the apparently cleaner version of cycling we have now.

mfin

RichN95 wrote:

I bow to no-one on this forum in my dislike for Contador, but there was clearly something more wrong than that - just like the Dauphine TT. I think he'll win a stage and he'll try something massive in the Alps (may not succeed)

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

That's the thing about Contador, he's a c0ck, so everyone gets to dislike him whether they worry about him doping or not.

cogidubnus

Think you are right. My comment about Contador was aimed at this stage in isolation rather than overall form. I'm looking forward to him having a good go in the alps as doping aside I do like watching his attacks. Dare I say it I also like Valverde...

*runs and hides

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

Best kind.

If pushed for a reason, it's that I just don't like the look of his face.

His cheesiness, dope ban and superfan have really just added to my dislike rather than created it.

It's strange, because he's epileptic which I should sympathise with (I'm not epileptic personally)

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Cogidubnus wrote:

So are you saying Euskatel and Belkin are doped up to their eyeballs and Saxo, BMC etc aren't?

If anything it suggests to me that everything is cleaner, Contader sans dope can't hang with decent climbers

I bow to no-one on this forum in my dislike for Contador, but there was clearly something more wrong than that - just like the Dauphine TT. I think he'll win a stage and he'll try something massive in the Alps (may not succeed)

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

It's difficult to know what his clean baseline performance is though. I think you're probably right that it's a bit above what he's been showing this season.

ddraver

+1 we ain't seen the last of bertie this month...

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

(My dislike for him strangely has nothing to do with doping. It's largely irrational)

Best kind.

If pushed for a reason, it's that I just don't like the look of his face.[/quote]

I despise him because he has an R in his name.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

I despise him because he has an R in his name.

Not like Chis Foome and Ichie Pote

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I despise him because he has an R in his name.

Not like Chis Foome and Ichie Pote

They don't have the same sort of R.

I don't actually like Froome anyway, don't know why. Might be the Gollum thing he's got going.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

I don't actually like Froome anyway, don't know why. Might be the Gollum thing he's got going.

I can see that. I like him because he's a bit posh. Porte on the other hand seems like a rider that no-one could really dislike.

Bakunin

RichN95 wrote:

Here's some of my thoughts. Firstly, if people want to have suspicions then that is their right. In fact, given the history of the sport it would be wrong not to at least wonder. I wonder myself sometimes - and I'm a big Sky fan. Today was dominant and superficially was reminiscent of Armstrong. It was also reminiscent of Fignon or Hinault or LeMond too. Even in a completely clean sport, someone is going win.

Now let's look at it in a little more detail.

Opposition
These were the pre-race favourites with the bookies:

Froome 1.46
Contador 3.60
Rodriguez 17.00
Porte 18.00
Quintana 20.00
Evans 26.00
Van Garderen 33.00

If Contador can't keep up with his own domestique, it is not because Sky are doping
If Rodriquez finishes even further back than that, it is not because Sky are doping
If Quintana decides to do a Hail Mary attack on the Tour's first mountain, it is not because Sky are doping
If Evans comes in alongside Roche and Gadret and over a minute behind Bardet, it is not because Sky are doping
If TJVG loses twelve minute, well you know it by now.

If prior to the stage I has said that Mollema, Ten Dam and Nieve would finish between 1 & 1.5 minutes down on Froome, no-one would have thought that unusual. Sky can't be blamed for others' failings.

There is a chance that some of the favourites saw this stage with a short 8km climb and discounted it aiming to peak for the end of week three. A mistake. Sky have learnt one of the non-doping things Armstrong did well - hitting the first MTF hard.

I agree with a lot of what Rich wrote, but I disagree that it is simply a case of others' failings. We watched a race in which people were ridden off of Froome's wheel by Porte. Sky doesn't do what it does in a vacuum. They hit the first MTF hard for a reason -- to destroy the competition. They did it, and did it well.

Porte said it ""The day worked absolutely to plan. We expected [Nairo] Quintana to attack and maybe he attacked too far out and so we used our team perfectly...This is the big one, we can't get too carried away, it's a long way to Paris but I enjoyed today. It's such an advantage riding on the front, taking everything and putting the guys behind to the sword."

The favorites failed, because SKY succeeded.

As Rich notes, how they succeeded can be questioned, but it wasn't just the faves didn't show up. They were destroyed.

Bo Duke

Bakunin wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Here's some of my thoughts. Firstly, if people want to have suspicions then that is their right. In fact, given the history of the sport it would be wrong not to at least wonder. I wonder myself sometimes - and I'm a big Sky fan. Today was dominant and superficially was reminiscent of Armstrong. It was also reminiscent of Fignon or Hinault or LeMond too. Even in a completely clean sport, someone is going win.

Now let's look at it in a little more detail.

Opposition
These were the pre-race favourites with the bookies:

Froome 1.46
Contador 3.60
Rodriguez 17.00
Porte 18.00
Quintana 20.00
Evans 26.00
Van Garderen 33.00

If Contador can't keep up with his own domestique, it is not because Sky are doping
If Rodriquez finishes even further back than that, it is not because Sky are doping
If Quintana decides to do a Hail Mary attack on the Tour's first mountain, it is not because Sky are doping
If Evans comes in alongside Roche and Gadret and over a minute behind Bardet, it is not because Sky are doping
If TJVG loses twelve minute, well you know it by now.

If prior to the stage I has said that Mollema, Ten Dam and Nieve would finish between 1 & 1.5 minutes down on Froome, no-one would have thought that unusual. Sky can't be blamed for others' failings.

There is a chance that some of the favourites saw this stage with a short 8km climb and discounted it aiming to peak for the end of week three. A mistake. Sky have learnt one of the non-doping things Armstrong did well - hitting the first MTF hard.

I agree with a lot of what Rich wrote, but I disagree that it is simply a case of others' failings. We watched a race in which people were ridden off of Froome's wheel by Porte. Sky doesn't do what it does in a vacuum. They hit the first MTF hard for a reason -- to destroy the competition. They did it, and did it well.

Porte said it ""The day worked absolutely to plan. We expected [Nairo] Quintana to attack and maybe he attacked too far out and so we used our team perfectly...This is the big one, we can't get too carried away, it's a long way to Paris but I enjoyed today. It's such an advantage riding on the front, taking everything and putting the guys behind to the sword."

The favorites failed, because SKY succeeded.

As Rich notes, how they succeeded can be questioned, but it wasn't just the faves didn't show up. They were destroyed.

2 great posts, well done.

WHY are Brits so negative, why do we always destroy what is good? Feck me, for the second year running we have the best team and the best rider. Be happy you miserable bunch.

It's really sad to watch how people decline into nit-pickers where success is judged on a Harry Enfield scale of 1-10 on who can be the biggest smart @rse.

We had the Lions victory, Froomie and hopefully Murray all in one weekend. But folks immediately thought 'oh no, not Murray' ......

rick_chasey

To be devil's advocate - would you be more suspicious if Froome was Spanish?

You might not have been here long enough, but, in short, if a rider does especially or unusually well, there will be accusations of doping.

The same applies to teams.

Here you have both a rider that's p!ssing on everyone else with time gaps to rivals on the first MTF not seen for many years, followed by his teammate > so double whammy - rider AND team domination.

Hence the chat.

It's cycling. Winners get accused of doping.

Bo Duke

I've been reading the forum for about 3 years Rick and know the folks love of intrigue.

If he was Spanish? That isn't the issue. I trust Brailsford is running a clean ship. I can't say the same of the other teams apart from maybe Garmin-Sharp.

If Frome proudly states he's clean and Sky confirm it from their own tests etc.. then the balance of probability suggestrs he is clean. Nationality doesn't come into it. Is Porte clean - yes. Pete K - yes. Big Stannard - yes. Saxo Tinkoff..... errr... not sure.

iainf72

Bo Duke wrote:

If Frome proudly states he's clean and Sky confirm it from their own tests etc.. then the balance of probability suggestrs he is clean. Nationality doesn't come into it. Is Porte clean - yes. Pete K - yes. Big Stannard - yes. Saxo Tinkoff..... errr... not sure.

So if someone was on Saxo, and are now on Sky, could they have been dirty? And reversing it, if someone left Sky to go to Saxo, are they likely to be mucky?

RoadPainter

iainf72 wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

If Frome proudly states he's clean and Sky confirm it from their own tests etc.. then the balance of probability suggestrs he is clean. Nationality doesn't come into it. Is Porte clean - yes. Pete K - yes. Big Stannard - yes. Saxo Tinkoff..... errr... not sure.

So if someone was on Saxo, and are now on Sky, could they have been dirty? And reversing it, if someone left Sky to go to Saxo, are they likely to be mucky?

Leave Mick Rogers alone. He's Australian so havng a bad enough time of it at the moment!

Pross

Vino'sGhost wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Ah but I think the doping soap opera is a major part of that entertainment for many UK/US cycling fans - Sky are their Dirty Den

oh get back to the clinic

Thought you'd put him on block so how did you see that

ddraver

Hee hee heee

Twitter backpedalling so fast it would set a W/kg of 60, let alone 6!

above_the_cows

Did this thread crash the forum?

For what's its worse I've never liked Bertie. Don't know why. I just don't like the cut of his jib.

To echo Rick this is supposed to be entertainment, its just a shame that sometimes those looking to engage in a spot of this



drown out the fun.