Sky are dopers - Oh no they're not

Rundfahrt

"Works harder" "Works better"

Wow, never heard that said about a winner who later turned out to be a doper.

Of course Rick made the best point of this thread...if Froome was Spanish the responses to cynicism would be completely different around here.

slim_boy_fat

Rundfahrt wrote:

"Works harder" "Works better"

Wow, never heard that said about a winner who later turned out to be a doper.

Of course Rick made the best point of this thread...if Froome was Spanish the responses to cynicism would be completely different around here.

So once again, all these sports stars across lots of sports all work as hard as their competitors. So the only conclusion is that those that win must be doping/cheating. Is that it?

Rundfahrt

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

"Works harder" "Works better"

Wow, never heard that said about a winner who later turned out to be a doper.

Of course Rick made the best point of this thread...if Froome was Spanish the responses to cynicism would be completely different around here.

So once again, all these sports stars across lots of sports all work as hard as their competitors. So the only conclusion is that those that win must be doping/cheating. Is that it?

1) I never said that, I simply pointed out the incontrovertible fact that the exact same things are being said in blind defense of Sky/Froome here as we're used to defend Armstrong/USPS on American cycling forums in their day.

2) With the knowledge we all have of doping in sports based on what has happened in the past and what is covered up as well as my own knowledge from inside high level sport it's a fools errand to think that winners of major sports events are not doping.

frenchfighter

WT.

slim_boy_fat

Blind defence? Pretty hard to mount a defence when the prosecution has no actual evidence. There was plenty of hard evidence against Armstrong et al that meant anyone defending was blind. Produce the hard evidence and I'll be sentencing Sky as quick as anybody else.

Rundfahrt

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Blind defence? Pretty hard to mount a defence when the prosecution has no actual evidence. There was plenty of hard evidence against Armstrong et al that meant anyone defending was blind. Produce the hard evidence and I'll be sentencing Sky as quick as anybody else.

...and the typical response, pick what you can argue and ignore the rest, like putting words in my mouth. You guys are very predictable in your blind defense of Sky.

slim_boy_fat

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Blind defence? Pretty hard to mount a defence when the prosecution has no actual evidence. There was plenty of hard evidence against Armstrong et al that meant anyone defending was blind. Produce the hard evidence and I'll be sentencing Sky as quick as anybody else.

...and the typical response, pick what you can argue and ignore the rest, like putting words in my mouth. You guys are very predictable in your blind defense of Sky.

So you've got no evidence then?

Anonymous

What we should do is just juice every rider up to the eyes and let them do the tour every month. Most of you are so cynical of any performance that that would be the sensible thing to do, so you didn't need to speculate.

Frenchie I've tried to ask you else where: why are you only targeting Sky riders?


Can someone show me any shread of evidence that Sky are doping, other than some keyboard warriors interpretation of figures?

Rundfahrt

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Blind defence? Pretty hard to mount a defence when the prosecution has no actual evidence. There was plenty of hard evidence against Armstrong et al that meant anyone defending was blind. Produce the hard evidence and I'll be sentencing Sky as quick as anybody else.

...and the typical response, pick what you can argue and ignore the rest, like putting words in my mouth. You guys are very predictable in your blind defense of Sky.

So you've got no evidence then?

YESSSSSS!!! More avoidance. You rare ducking and dodging like a champion fighter (or like Virenque with the media in 1998)

By the way I have no evidence, never claimed to have any. It's called logical suspicion. Oh, and you are using another one used by the Armstrong fans. You guys are dong a great job proving me right over and over when it comes to your excuses.

slim_boy_fat

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Blind defence? Pretty hard to mount a defence when the prosecution has no actual evidence. There was plenty of hard evidence against Armstrong et al that meant anyone defending was blind. Produce the hard evidence and I'll be sentencing Sky as quick as anybody else.

...and the typical response, pick what you can argue and ignore the rest, like putting words in my mouth. You guys are very predictable in your blind defense of Sky.

So you've got no evidence then?

YESSSSSS!!! More avoidance. You rare ducking and dodging like a champion fighter (or like Virenque with the media in 1998)

By the way I have no evidence, never claimed to have any. It's called logical suspicion. Oh, and you are using another one used by the Armstrong fans. You guys are dong a great job proving me right over and over when it comes to your excuses.

Ah finally, you admit it, you have no evidence.

frenchfighter

sjmclean wrote:

Frenchie I've tried to ask you else where: why are you only targeting Sky riders

I dislike Sky because they have changed the nature of racing for the worse in the last 2-3 years. Lessens my enjoyment of the sport until we get days like today. Also from an impartial view, many of their performances are just not believable for me. If other teams or riders did what they did over and over again I would say the same about them.

ddraver

(except when Contador gets convicted from a proven drug test - then I think it's all rubbish!)

ddraver

Appauling video, but a good reflection about the level of cycling debate at present- http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 01411.html

Kimmage vs Andreu

Turfle

They're on quick acting, rather than long lasting.

Rundfahrt

ddraver wrote:

Appauling video, but a good reflection about the level of cycling debate at present- http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 01411.html

Kimmage vs Andreu

Two comments:

1) Frankie defends Froome but says its ok to be suspicious. Many here could learn from that.

2) Kimmage is an interesting man. In his book he put the onus for doping on the team but now it's almost entirely about the rider. What changed...besides him being a rider who did dope?

Turfle

ddraver wrote:

Appauling video, but a good reflection about the level of cycling debate at present- http://www.independent.ie/sport/kimmage ... 01411.html

Kimmage vs Andreu

See Kimmage excitedly giving the thumbs up to camera when he thought Frankie was about to say it was a discouraging performance. Sums him up to me.

Bakunin

Geez -- how short is Kimmage?

Why would anyone post that? Beyond stupid.

I'm off to Ireland tomorrow, but I have to say it -- Kimmage is one angry, anti-doping leprechaun.

tailwindhome

You're a witch

No I'm not

That's what a witch would say.

Vino'sGhost

TailWindHome wrote:

You're a witch

No I'm not

That's what a witch would say.

Burn her!

rob churchill

Ok so Froome goes up a hill 1% slower than LA. But:

• LA did it well into the tour, Froome was fresh
• LA was sitting on a lead, Froome was going flat out to make one
• Froome's time maybe not measured over quite the same distance, could be 3% slower, not 1%

under the circumstances, not the most conclusive evidence, is it?

FWIW, my take is that for most of the LA era, doping was very, very easy and only an incompetent would get caught. The 50% haematocrit was as close to an admission of defeat by the dope-testers as you could get. But the pendulum has swung back and the advantage is with the testers for once. No-one can use any method of blood-doping with any confidence they'll get away with it because the bioparameter testing and the skills needed to beat it are of unprecedented subtlety and complexity. Right now, if I were a procyclist on the juice, I'd be twitching at every knock on the door, lying awake at night, and wondering if it was really worth it.

Some teams/riders have adapted well to this change in the operating environment, others maybe miss that blood bag on the rest day a bit more and their current form shows it.

Doubtless the dopers will find new methods or smarter doctors and the pendulum will swing back. Until then, I'll just enjoy watching a sport that, if not 100% clean, is certainly cleaner than it's been since long before I started watching.

ddraver

For those that care about, you know, reality and science and stuff, @dimspace has done sterling work to uncover the total fallacy of the numbers frenchie has used in all his little graphs up there. Worth a look...

Pross

Excellent post Rob. Reasoned argument will never catch on on the Internet though!

mfin

It is hilarious how people go digging for some numbers as some sort of evidence.

I don't have a defensive view of anyone in Sky, or any rider in any other team, but once there's evidence it can be considered.

People hunting for evidence who defend other riders who have doped, have been convicted, and even have more evidence against them that haven't been addressed is bloody funny to be fair

Never underestimate how much bias can make for retarded half reasoned accusation of doping (or defending of it when the boot is up another rider's ass).

TheHound

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

ddraver

More reality on the numbers - http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSB ... 7?irpc=932

Think you ve got a point Hound...

joelsim

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

+1

r0bh

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

This is one of the points that William Fotheringham makes in his piece Project Wiggins about last year's Tour win in the Cycling Anthology Vol 1

coopster_the_1st

Squaggles wrote:

Surely Mick Rogers knows all the secrets

This is the swing vote for me that Sky are clean. Because of his role in the team with Sky in the last couple of years he would know the secrets, if there were any.

Now he is with Saxo, he would be bringing any secrets with him. Or if he was unable to replicate them, he could fess up, Sky would be thrown off the tour and give his team the TdF win(assuming Contador is the next best rider)

Or there are not any secrets. I'm sure Mick Rogers has been asked many times for his knowledge by the Saxo management and team mates

Pross

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Squaggles wrote:

Surely Mick Rogers knows all the secrets

This is the swing vote for me that Sky are clean. Because of his role in the team with Sky in the last couple of years he would know the secrets, if there were any.

Now he is with Saxo, he would be bringing any secrets with him. Or if he was unable to replicate them, he could fess up, Sky would be thrown off the tour and give his team the TdF win(assuming Contador is the next best rider)

Or there are not any secrets. I'm sure Mick Rogers has been asked many times for his knowledge by the Saxo management and team mates

Plus he was more or less booted out of the team due to their 'zero tolerance' policy. I think he'd have something to say about hypocrisy if he knew they were running an advanced doping scheme.

Pross

TheHound wrote:

My take, far from definitive.

Sky have plowed money into training and marginal gains. Every other team were throwing money into doping.

Since the LA shiz kicked off everyone has realised it's far too risky to dope and are now riding without. Hence Contador dropping off and people like A.Schleck.

Sky/Froome basically have a head start over everyone else by doing things right from the start.

I was absolutely staggered to realise that other than the pre-season get together (which is really just a PR event) most teams rarely train together for the whole season. I mean getting a team coach and having riders who will ride together train as a team is hardly rocket science and yet teams are still not doing it and then when such a basic and obvious thing is done well people start looking for other reasons for he success. Also not many teams seem to have a sports scientist on the squad, coaching seems to be based on what's always been done or old wives tales!