Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

bazbadger

i've read some really dumb things on this thread.

heavymental

FFS. The 'race for dopers' idea is such a pointless and annoying pub conversation. Why is it going on here? Rayjay is obviously the fat drunk guy on a barstool who doesn't stop talking. Who goes near those people in real life!? Just get your pint, nod and smile and go back to your table.

Thought to myself today, what would we have said 5 years ago if we were told 2 Brits would win the tour in consecutive years and one of them would involve a big attacking win on Ventoux. These are good times and I'm on the forums less to avoid all this bs moaning about doping and even the style of the victory.

Pross

So Sky release their data to a newspaper, it gets analysed by a top sports scientist who declares it falls within realistic parameters and yet still the Internet experts who haven't seen the data, in very few cases have any knowledge of sports science and in many cases have probably never even raced a bike know better. Says it all really.

tailwindhome

Just catching up after a couple of days away.

Just out of interest, who are all these BR Forum Sky Fanboys supposed to be?

I would have thought this is a fairly Sky Agnostic forum.

Do these posters only exist in certain imaginations?

iainf72

Pross wrote:

So Sky release their data to a newspaper, it gets analysed by a top sports scientist who declares it falls within realistic parameters and yet still the Internet experts who haven't seen the data, in very few cases have any knowledge of sports science and in many cases have probably never even raced a bike know better. Says it all really.

What did you expect?

And Sky have just given them more of a stick to beat them with coz of that whole "ooh, we'll give data to WADA / UKADA" thing.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

So Sky release their data to a newspaper, it gets analysed by a top sports scientist who declares it falls within realistic parameters and yet still the Internet experts who haven't seen the data, in very few cases have any knowledge of sports science and in many cases have probably never even raced a bike know better. Says it all really.

The objections I've seen are:

a) Why just one person looking at the data - it proves they have something to hide
b) Why only the last two years - let's have data from when he wasn't as good - if there's an improvement then we'll know
c) Fred Grappe said something good about Armstrong twelve years ago - he's a patsy
d) How do we know the data isn't forged
e) Sky must be lying about not testing for VO2 - they are hiding something

These people's desperation to find something against Froome or Sky allied to their inability to do so is one of the more compelling pointers to their cleanliness for me.

Pross

iainf72 wrote:

Pross wrote:

So Sky release their data to a newspaper, it gets analysed by a top sports scientist who declares it falls within realistic parameters and yet still the Internet experts who haven't seen the data, in very few cases have any knowledge of sports science and in many cases have probably never even raced a bike know better. Says it all really.

What did you expect?

And Sky have just given them more of a stick to beat them with coz of that whole "ooh, we'll give data to WADA / UKADA" thing.

I expected just this. To me it just goes to show that some people want riders to be doping and have to keep that 90s - 00s feeling alive. The racing is unimportant, it's not about the bike!

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

Just out of interest, who are all these BR Forum Sky Fanboys supposed to be?

Iain's one of them. He thinks they're clean so he must really, really love them. He probably has a Sky duvet cover.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

These people's desperation to find something against Froome or Sky allied to their inability to do so is one of the more compelling pointers to their cleanliness for me.

My dislike of Sky is well known. If the funding was pulled for the team I'd dance a jig and stir a giant imaginary pot, however, you're quite right, there is nothing.

Did they say one thing and do another? Yes, absolutely

Have they had or got people involved in the team who were involved in doping? Fo' shizzle.

Is there a single thing that indicates they're doping? Nope.

argyllflyer

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

So Sky release their data to a newspaper, it gets analysed by a top sports scientist who declares it falls within realistic parameters and yet still the Internet experts who haven't seen the data, in very few cases have any knowledge of sports science and in many cases have probably never even raced a bike know better. Says it all really.

The objections I've seen are:

a) Why just one person looking at the data - it proves they have something to hide
b) Why only the last two years - let's have data from when he wasn't as good - if there's an improvement then we'll know
c) Fred Grappe said something good about Armstrong twelve years ago - he's a patsy
d) How do we know the data isn't forged
e) Sky must be lying about not testing for VO2 - they are hiding something

These people's desperation to find something against Froome or Sky allied to their inability to do so is one of the more compelling pointers to their cleanliness for me.

It would be magic if Froome fed them by wearing a trollface mask on the podium on Sunday, and remarked of his sorrow that they can't "dream big" and "believe in miracles".

rayjay

No changed my mind . That photo of earth made me realise that nobody dopes in cycling. Maybe show a photo of a cute kitten and we would then know for sure that Sky only hired Leinders to put a plaster on Wiggos cut finger.

squired

One of the most common comments about Sky releasing data for Froome was about the fact it was only for the last two years. There is a nice video on the Cyclingnews Youtube channel covering this. Someone asks that question and Brailsford goes onto explain that they were given estimated numbers for Froome on climbs, so they provided the actual data from those climbs. The data that had been estimated covered the period since 2011.

So, no conspiracy, or Sky trying to hide something. They simply provided the real numbers to cover those that had been estimated.

As DB said in the video, whatever they do someone will jump up and down with a conspiracy theory about what they have done. To be honest, it is getting pretty sad now.

If the Froome data is indeed consistent and flat from the last two years it shows that rather than him improving all of his competitors have lost power. Whether that is due to age/desire/reduced doping or whatever is an answer we don't have, but if he was on the "form" from 2011 we'd have Cobo battling Froome for yellow right now....

mididoctors

I think his speech should include the sentiment that people need to keep asking questions and not be complacent. even if he is sick of it.

r0bh

OnYourRight wrote:

squired wrote:

If the Froome data is indeed consistent and flat from the last two years it shows that rather than him improving all of his competitors have lost power.

That’s a leap! It might just show that Froome lost weight (which he did), learned some race tactics (which he did), improved his efficiency (which he did with wind-tunnel work, funny chainrings, etc.), and gained the support of a good team (which he did).

The data released included his weight which has been stable within 900g since 2011.

samiam

I don't think Froome is doping. I think he is the best cyclist in the world with the best team.

I think a few of the team leaders can't dope anymore and are much worse as a result. Suddenly a bunch of no names look like they are owning former world class riders because you're comparing them to doping super responders who can't dope anymore.

Put Quintana, Porte, Kreuziger etc etc as team leaders and we'll have a damn fine bike race.

Runtothehills

mididoctors wrote:

I think his speech should include the sentiment that people need to keep asking questions and not be complacent. even if he is sick of it.

Yes, to a point. Ask the questions when there's something to ask about.

Asking 'Are you/your team doping?' repeatedly is annoying and pointless as what kind of cyclist or coach is going to say 'well I know I've said no in the past but because you've been so persistant I admit it'. All it does is allow the journalists to say they tried and annoy everyone else.

Turfle

Still waiting for the debate to start involving Quintana and Rodriguez, who have been putting up proper dodgy numbers (or guesses, if you will), and getting stronger the longer the race has gone on.

jezzpalmer

Turfle wrote:

Still waiting for the debate to start involving Quintana and Rodriguez, who have been putting up proper dodgy numbers (or guesses, if you will), and getting stronger the longer the race has gone on.

Where's the fun in calling them out? It's not like those teams have a past of doping or anything.
Guess if they rode for Sky then they'd have been nailed to the crucifix by now...

TheBigBean

Turfle wrote:

Still waiting for the debate to start involving Quintana and Rodriguez, who have been putting up proper dodgy numbers (or guesses, if you will), and getting stronger the longer the race has gone on.

Quintana is young so an automatic pass. J-Rod is just a late bloomer that's all.

TheBigBean

samiam wrote:

I think a few of the team leaders can't dope anymore and are much worse as a result.

This is a common opinion. Why do you think they have suddenly stopped doping? The biological passport has been around since 2008 and only a few new tests have been brought in (a revised EPO one, AICAR etc ) - none of which seem to be a sea change.

If I was forced to speculate I would imagine that there is more doping now than when the passport was first introduced as riders / teams / Dr. Evils have become more knowledge about ways around it.

samiam

TheBigBean wrote:

samiam wrote:

I think a few of the team leaders can't dope anymore and are much worse as a result.

This is a common opinion. Why do you think they have suddenly stopped doping?

Mainly because certain riders have looked progressively worse. My experience of doping was consistent super performance with the dividing line being super responders and which team is doped better. I don't see that anymore. But I could obviously be wrong, I'm open to that.

I have to say though, if it comes out that Froome is doping I would never watch cycling again. Would be a real nail in the coffin moment. For me it would sully Wiggins and by extension the entire GB team. I'm already skeptical enough about top level sport.

So I have to err on the side of positive thinking! Allez Froome etc

No_Ta_Doctor

TheBigBean wrote:

samiam wrote:

I think a few of the team leaders can't dope anymore and are much worse as a result.

This is a common opinion. Why do you think they have suddenly stopped doping? The biological passport has been around since 2008 and only a few new tests have been brought in (a revised EPO one, AICAR etc ) - none of which seem to be a sea change.

If I was forced to speculate I would imagine that there is more doping now than when the passport was first introduced as riders / teams / Dr. Evils have become more knowledge about ways around it.

Well two of the top favourites for the podium already have a black mark, so presumably are target tested and risk a permanent ban. Might have to be a little more careful.

Others have pointed out that the bio pass might not be stopping doping so much as placing an upper limit. Which would mean the returns are smaller for the risk.

TheBigBean

samiam wrote:

So I have to err on the side of positive thinking! Allez Froome etc

Always a good attitude to have.

StillGoing

It does seem odd that since Contador and F Schleck got caught, he and a few others have not performed to their old standard. There's also the issue of the blood bags and files the Spanish courts have tried to have destroyed. What more will they reveal and is the current form of those with a "history", anything to do with what might be in those files, and the hope that riding clean now will minimize any retrospective punishment?

From reading the posts on here, it's evident that the majority of Froome's doubters are actually fanboys of historical dopers (mainly Contador) and just can't face the fact that their man has been beaten by a clean and on the day, better rider and team.

samiam

philthy3 wrote:

From reading the posts on here, it's evident that the majority of Froome's doubters are actually fanboys of historical dopers (mainly Contador) and just can't face the fact that their man has been beaten by a clean and on the day, better rider and team.

Completely agree!.

'Froome is making Contador look rubbish - therefore he must be a doper'. Nope, Contador circa 2009 is making Contador circa 2013 look rubbish! (Same with Cuddles). Froome spent most stages waiting for the big 'dancing on the pedals' attack. Never happened.

I think Froome could have been blown if a few more teams had proper team leaders and less struggling ex-dopers. IMHO Froome was extremely close to cracking and losing major time.

rayjay

philthy3 wrote:

It does seem odd that since Contador and F Schleck got caught, he and a few others have not performed to their old standard. There's also the issue of the blood bags and files the Spanish courts have tried to have destroyed. What more will they reveal and is the current form of those with a "history", anything to do with what might be in those files, and the hope that riding clean now will minimize any retrospective punishment?

From reading the posts on here, it's evident that the majority of Froome's doubters are actually fanboys of historical dopers (mainly Contador) and just can't face the fact that their man has been beaten by a clean and on the day, better rider and team.[/quote

They got all the cyclists in the Fuentes case. The bags to be destroyed are of footballers and tennis players etc etc .
Historical doping, riders have been getting busted all this year. Thats not historic.
Of course im a fanboy of historical doping . I watch cycling. Doping and cycling go hand in hand. If that upsets you then check the wiki sight for busted riders and you will realise its never been any other way. FACT.
I don't have a man .Froome has performed well. I don't like Sky as sponsors and I just dont trust them. I don't get worked up about my fav riders winning or losing as you seem and others seem to. Congrats to Froome . if Contador
had won I have no doubt the Sky fans woud be calling him a cheating doper etc etc. It's Cycling they all dope.

morstar

rayjay wrote:

It's Cycling they all dope.

If nothing else, this assertion is statistically remarkably unlikely. I know that will have no impact on your rhetoric but felt it did need highlighting.

mfin

Never ever go back to a berk once it's been lit, it might still go off.

Pross

samiam wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

From reading the posts on here, it's evident that the majority of Froome's doubters are actually fanboys of historical dopers (mainly Contador) and just can't face the fact that their man has been beaten by a clean and on the day, better rider and team.

Completely agree!.

'Froome is making Contador look rubbish - therefore he must be a doper'. Nope, Contador circa 2009 is making Contador circa 2013 look rubbish! (Same with Cuddles). Froome spent most stages waiting for the big 'dancing on the pedals' attack. Never happened.

I think Froome could have been blown if a few more teams had proper team leaders and less struggling ex-dopers. IMHO Froome was extremely close to cracking and losing major time.

Why the same with Cuddles? Age and the Wiggins factor (can't motivate to the level required to win) plus having come third in a very tough Giro are the reasons Cuddles has been so poor.

rayjay

morstar wrote:

rayjay wrote:

It's Cycling they all dope.

If nothing else, this assertion is statistically remarkably unlikely. I know that will have no impact on your rhetoric but felt it did need highlighting.

I was just trying to highlight the fact that if you look at the history of tour winners, nearly all poven dopers.
But I see it's still irking a few of you.
I like the Vibe on here. Froomy is beating Contador etc because he no longer dopes but Quintana and Rodriquez are suspected of doping because they have beat Froome or keep up with him. But Only Froome can ride at that level clean. Can you see what ya doing ?
All the team managers dope as well, ha ha ha