Inside Team Sky - David Walsh *Spoilers*
Comments
-
whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Yes, that's a trained eyewitness observing the offence taking place, which supported by recorded evidence - either a speed gun or a car tachometer.whiteboytrash wrote:
Are facts not evidence?
You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?
For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?
Is visual estimation alone legitimate?
When you have something that good, let us know.
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.
Speed gun not required.
Reckless driving can be visual also.
That is evidence.
Like climbing times. Facts are evidence.
Look, I'm just going to chime in on this use of climbing times as evidence- its been annoying me all the way through this thread and I have stopped myself from posting on a number of occasions.
Climbing times are a guide and nothing more than anectodal evidence due to the number of variables associated with them. Some have already been mentioned, like in a TT, mid stage, mtf, week long vs 3 week stage race. There is also the matter of equipment improvements, increased use of power meters for measured efforts, weather conditions, and you can't forget motivation.
Unfortunately the only reliable way of comparing two efforts is for them to be completely lab controlled. Take a two riders out of competition for a year, give them the same training programme (which can be guaranteed to have been followed accurately), the same motivation or reward- i.e a cash prize, and same recovery period after the event to ensure they do not need to make the same effort again, allowing them to know they can go to the same depth of effort with no consequences.
You cannot compare two times from different days, using different equipment, in different races, with different circumstances surrounding the effort, and with a performance having different meaning in terms of race/career/profile.
Riders have different attitudes towards a performance, and whilst one may want to win a stage, one may be looking to regain a lot of time back, do enough to maintain a lead, extend the lead by a small margin. There is also the fact that take a TT stage in a 1 week stage race as has been stated, vs a stage in the TdF. One could be raced knowing that a win by 'X' seconds is enough to take the overall so why do more, or there is the chance of putting in a big performance that will potentially deter rivals from attacking you, and instead concentrate on not losing time to their closer rivals by ultimately unsuccessful attacks.
Right, that's my opinion, obviously people will have their own and I'm glad, the world would be boring otherwise. I'm going back to writing my report testing potential structural controls on a gold deposit- which has taken me 4 days of processing a 14,000+ point data set plus the 3 weeks of training I did back in March to ensure I could trust the data taken. I wish I could just get information from unverified sources on the internet and use them as fact, my life would be a lot easier0 -
Good post Andy, well put.0
-
And that's you version. I'm not trying to justify them hiring him. It was a mistake. People make them. I could point to many many examples of lousy pieces of recruitment.rayjay wrote:
You make some good Points Rich. But that is just your version to justify Sky hiring Leinder's.
He his a doctor who has doped riders and Sky hired him and were fully aware of who he his and what he's done.
To say they never checked out someone who will be an important part of their medical staff is crazy and does not fit in with the way Brialsford runs things.
Paying attention to details does not make someone immune from error, it just minimizes it. NASA are sticklers for detail, but 1 in 50 missions still end in fatalities.
Leinders's last day working for Sky was before Armstrong was charged by USADA. The two are unrelated. Julich and De Jongh leaving - sure that was prompted by Armstrong. But not Leinders. He was long out of the picture.rayjay wrote:Like I said before, If Armstrongs case had not blown up then Sky would not have been under scrutiny and they would not have got rid of Leinder's and the others.Twitter: @RichN950 -
andytee87 wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Yes, that's a trained eyewitness observing the offence taking place, which supported by recorded evidence - either a speed gun or a car tachometer.whiteboytrash wrote:
Are facts not evidence?
You do understand how evidence works in the judiciary system don't you?
For example can the police charge you for speeding on visual alone and use that as evidence?
Is visual estimation alone legitimate?
When you have something that good, let us know.
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.
Speed gun not required.
Reckless driving can be visual also.
That is evidence.
Like climbing times. Facts are evidence.
Look, I'm just going to chime in on this use of climbing times as evidence- its been annoying me all the way through this thread and I have stopped myself from posting on a number of occasions.
Climbing times are a guide and nothing more than anectodal evidence due to the number of variables associated with them. Some have already been mentioned, like in a TT, mid stage, mtf, week long vs 3 week stage race. There is also the matter of equipment improvements, increased use of power meters for measured efforts, weather conditions, and you can't forget motivation.
Unfortunately the only reliable way of comparing two efforts is for them to be completely lab controlled. Take a two riders out of competition for a year, give them the same training programme (which can be guaranteed to have been followed accurately), the same motivation or reward- i.e a cash prize, and same recovery period after the event to ensure they do not need to make the same effort again, allowing them to know they can go to the same depth of effort with no consequences.
You cannot compare two times from different days, using different equipment, in different races, with different circumstances surrounding the effort, and with a performance having different meaning in terms of race/career/profile.
Riders have different attitudes towards a performance, and whilst one may want to win a stage, one may be looking to regain a lot of time back, do enough to maintain a lead, extend the lead by a small margin. There is also the fact that take a TT stage in a 1 week stage race as has been stated, vs a stage in the TdF. One could be raced knowing that a win by 'X' seconds is enough to take the overall so why do more, or there is the chance of putting in a big performance that will potentially deter rivals from attacking you, and instead concentrate on not losing time to their closer rivals by ultimately unsuccessful attacks.
Right, that's my opinion, obviously people will have their own and I'm glad, the world would be boring otherwise. I'm going back to writing my report testing potential structural controls on a gold deposit- which has taken me 4 days of processing a 14,000+ point data set plus the 3 weeks of training I did back in March to ensure I could trust the data taken. I wish I could just get information from unverified sources on the internet and use them as fact, my life would be a lot easier
All good points but it’s still evidence.
If this were court proceedings (which it’s not) then it would be for the defendant to apply arguments to dismiss portions or aspects of the evidence. You can’t ignore the data because there are “variables”. That’s true of anything. There are generally always variables in real life situations.. It’s just a matter of understanding whether the variables had a significant impact upon the outcome.
The fact that Froome, from the point of his attack on Contador at 7.1km to the summit of Ventoux, was faster than multiple Armstrong times and close to Pantani demonstrates that maybe the variables in this instance weren’t a major factor in showing that he went very quickly.
As quick as known dopers.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
"How fast was the defendent going?"whiteboytrash wrote:[
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.
Speed gun not required.
Reckless driving can be visual also.
That is evidence.
"About 90mph"
"How do you know?"
"I saw it visually"
"Did you measure it in any way?"
"No"
"No speed gun, no on board tachometer reading, no video"
"None of those. Just my eyes"
"So how can be be sure that he was speeding"
"Because I say so"
"Motion to dismiss your honour"
"Granted. I'll see the prosectution in my chambers. NOW!"
So now you’re saying witness testimony doesn’t count in the court system?
Well I never. News to me.
I'll inform the Queen and we can open the doors to our jails 8)0 -
Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.
No one wonder she cancelled.0 -
Some beers, some tacos...the sofa...the book...
Will be a decent night after all0 -
rayjay wrote:BigMat wrote:This is hilarious! There really is no way out for Sky with such searing investigative analysis.
To be fair, the stuff about Hayman, de Jong and Flecha being there pre-Leinders is quite an interesting angle. As far as I'm aware though, the riders have never confessed to anything (and unlikely to have done so to Brailsford) and de Jong was probably the same at the time (has he 'fessed up now? I lose track...). There just doesn't seem to have been any dirt on Leinders at the time he was hired by Sky and even now I'm not convinced he was a Ferrari / Fuentes type at his worst, nevermind whilst at Sky. It is all a bit murky, but a long way from the smoking gun the cynics are looking for.
Leinder's doped a whole team. You cannot try and play the facts down with words.
He's a great big MASSIVE doping Dr and Sky hired him. FACT.
And now he's not on their books anymore does that mean they only doped when he was.
Its so obvious what they hired him for, it's there in your face like Ferrari was in LA's face, but you won't admit that Sky could do such a thing.
If this was not Sky no one would be defending the hiring of a Dr who dopes whole teams.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just asking a few questions to see if your arguments hold water. I'm genuinely curious. So far its just a load of hot air though - conspiracy theories, a witch hunt, nothing concrete at all. I'm interested in the Leinders thing as it was a major foul up by Brailsford at best, but you aren't doing a good job of convincing me it was anything other than a PR disaster. Maybe you could quote the Dutch media reports on Leinders, or the passages from chicken's book that demonstrate that he was ever anything more than the guy on the ground that stuck the needles in. That sort of thing might help.0 -
Good Points again Rich.
There was scrutiny around Sky and that's why Leinder's and the rest had to go
Well said BigMat
We can only go on the info we know and like you said Leinders was sticking needles in riders.
He his a Dr and knowledge does come with being a Dr and I am sure Sky would not have hired Leinder's if he did not know his stuff.
Froomes times are some of the quickest but also his performance and how strong he looked on some of those climbs. He always looked like the man to beat even with no team mates around. IMO he could have gone quicker on some of those climbs if he was not thinking about tactics. Froome IMO looked on a different level most of the time. IMO it does not look like the performance of a clean rider,having seen what's gone on in previous tours.
If say for instance Quintana or Contador beat Froome in next years tour are you not going to question their performance.....I would, the same way I question Froome's.
For me there is almost 2 main issues. If Froome rode for another team and performed like that I would ask questions.
If Sky are doing something naughty that is another thing which is far more significant IMO and is a lot bigger than just one rider winning a race that has nearly always been won by doped riders.0 -
Quintana definitely not. He's a class act. Froome's biggest threat. But he seems to be off to the Giro.rayjay wrote:
If say for instance Quintana or Contador beat Froome in next years tour are you not going to question their performance.....I would, the same way I question Froome's.
Contador - maybe, maybe not - it depends on the performance. He has served an actual ban, remember.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. But all too many people are unwilling to listen to the answers as they have already decided what they are. (Not necessarily you).rayjay wrote:For me there is almost 2 main issues. If Froome rode for another team and performed like that I would ask questions.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
"How fast was the defendent going?"whiteboytrash wrote:[
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.
Speed gun not required.
Reckless driving can be visual also.
That is evidence.
"About 90mph"
"How do you know?"
"I saw it visually"
"Did you measure it in any way?"
"No"
"No speed gun, no on board tachometer reading, no video"
"None of those. Just my eyes"
"So how can be be sure that he was speeding"
"Because I say so"
"Motion to dismiss your honour"
"Granted. I'll see the prosectution in my chambers. NOW!"
You are wasting your time Rich, you can shoot down every scrap of so called doping "evidence" about Sky but the clinic dwellers will still come back with the same old same old, till the end of time. Some people take up an argument that becomes untenable and even though all there so called "evidence" and suspicions are shot down in flames they have painted themselves into a corner and feel they cant admit they may be wrong, or walk away, they simply repeat, well.......Its true, its true, Sky are dopers.
I have more diverting things to do, I hope you do too. When Sky win the Tour again next year the Clinic will probably crash. Ha. Cant wait. 0 -
mike6 wrote:RichN95 wrote:
"How fast was the defendent going?"whiteboytrash wrote:[
Yes visual speed alone or pacing is enough.
Speed gun not required.
Reckless driving can be visual also.
That is evidence.
"About 90mph"
"How do you know?"
"I saw it visually"
"Did you measure it in any way?"
"No"
"No speed gun, no on board tachometer reading, no video"
"None of those. Just my eyes"
"So how can be be sure that he was speeding"
"Because I say so"
"Motion to dismiss your honour"
"Granted. I'll see the prosectution in my chambers. NOW!"
You are wasting your time Rich, you can shoot down every scrap of so called doping "evidence" about Sky but the clinic dwellers will still come back with the same old same old, till the end of time. Some people take up an argument that becomes untenable and even though all there so called "evidence" and suspicions are shot down in flames they have painted themselves into a corner and feel they cant admit they may be wrong, or walk away, they simply repeat, well.......Its true, its true, Sky are dopers.
I have more diverting things to do, I hope you do too. When Sky win the Tour again next year the Clinic will probably crash. Ha. Cant wait.
I don't think anyone is unfairly accusing Sky of doping.
Some of you appear fanatical in pointing fingers stating, “look everyone says Sky are doping”, “look at them, they’re all crazy”
But they are not.
They are asking questions. Wanting to know more. And due to the lack of creditable information from Sky they look for information wherever it becomes available.
That’s a very normal process. It’s what humans do. They become suspicious and they want to learn more.
For a sport mired in doping its not particular unusual for this process to occur. Especially when the performances on the surface appear super fast.
What is the alternate suggestion? To say nothing? And just believe? Look where that got the world with Armstrong.0 -
Just for a Ventoux reminders, this is what I roughly remember...
After 10mins from the moment of attacking (with the big part of it happening after pulling up to and riding with Quintana) he was sat with Quintana with about a minute gap over Contador and the other guy AC was with(?) …then with less(?) than 1.5k to go (which takes a few minutes to ride) he makes his move on Quintana who very quickly knows he’s beaten and doesn’t try to go with him at all, and Froome ends up taking 30 seconds out of Quintana and about the same 30 seconds out of the rest over those last few mins when he finally goes full blast. All this coming after being paced by the most organised team and having perhaps the strongest wingman present in his team too.
This was also a day where Froome apparently wanted the stage win, to seal is position and show his hand, in a race where he is the on-form guy really... it's not exactly our mate Lance on Hautacam is it? As they say in Pulp Fiction, it's not even the same ******* ballpark.
I don't see how this ride shows any 'evidence' (gotta laugh) of doping.0 -
mfin wrote:Just for a Ventoux reminders, this is what I roughly remember...
After 10mins from the moment of attacking (with the big part of it happening after pulling up to and riding with Quintana) he was sat with Quintana with about a minute gap over Contador and the other guy AC was with(?) …then with less(?) than 1.5k to go (which takes a few minutes to ride) he makes his move on Quintana who very quickly knows he’s beaten and doesn’t try to go with him at all, and Froome ends up taking 30 seconds out of Quintana and about the same 30 seconds out of the rest over those last few mins when he finally goes full blast. All this coming after being paced by the most organised team and having perhaps the strongest wingman present in his team too.
This was also a day where Froome apparently wanted the stage win, to seal is position and show his hand, in a race where he is the on-form guy really... it's not exactly our mate Lance on Hautacam is it? As they say in Pulp Fiction, it's not even the same ******* ballpark.
I don't see how this ride shows any 'evidence' (gotta laugh) of doping.
You're right it wasn't exactly Armstrong.
It was faster from his attack 7.1km.
"2000 Armstrong 21'32
2002 Armstrong 20'22
2009 Contador 20'31
2013 Froome 20'04"
Visually it was absurd. There were many raised eyebrows.
Compared to Mayo's ITT Froome in the last 6km wasn't far off.
6.1km (remaining from 15.5km checkpoint)
Mayo: 55.51 - 39.04 = 16.47
Hamilton: 56.26 - 39.21 = 17.05
Armstrong: 57.09 - 40.02 = 17.07
Froome @ 2.50s per km = 17.20
I don't think anyone is saying it is tantamount to guilt of doping but its certainly puts Froome in the same league as dopers on times.
That is enough to be asking questions, surely?
Or are we fanatical enough to say "no questions, don't ask" ?0 -
Ventoux?
Would that be the one where after riding on the front for 4 hours at 50kph, Movistar
then sent Quintana on a solo attack, 40 minutes from the top?
Damn, with all these questions to be asked,
you'd think they would have asked about that wind direction. :roll:
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Ventoux?
Would that be the one where after riding on the front for 4 hours at 50kph, Movistar
then sent Quintana on a solo attack, 40 minutes from the top?
Damn, with all these questions to be asked,
you'd think they would have asked about that wind direction. :roll:
Have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sorry you're not making much sense.0 -
andytee87 wrote:Right, that's my opinion, obviously people will have their own and I'm glad, the world would be boring otherwise. I'm going back to writing my report testing potential structural controls on a gold deposit- which has taken me 4 days of processing a 14,000+ point data set plus the 3 weeks of training I did back in March to ensure I could trust the data taken. I wish I could just get information from unverified sources on the internet and use them as fact, my life would be a lot easier
Chapeau.whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.
No one wonder she cancelled.
Nicely done. Stay classy.whiteboytrash wrote:I don't think anyone is unfairly accusing Sky of doping.whiteboytrash wrote:The fact there was little on Leinders is exactly the reason why you'd hire him.
A doping doctor you can invite around for dinner.
Perfect. A match made in heaven for ZTP Sky :shock:
The fact they off loaded him when everyone did finally joined the dots showing they were "found out".whiteboytrash wrote:
I said he was hired to ensure no one tested positive, not to run a doping program.
I rest my case.
And I rest mine.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Oh sorry, yes, Froome put in an incredible attack, shot off up the road for abosultely ages, just like Lance on Hautacam. :roll:
Here you go, you like numbers so the rough ones are he's attacking with something like 7k to go if I remember right, taking 7mins out of the leader who was 7 1/2 mins ahead and about 10 mins on the climb over rivals(?). Hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0
It's actually worth watching WBT, and I think if we saw Froome do that to everyone then we'd all spit our sugarpuffs out, but he hasn't done anything like it. If Froome is beating people through doping then he should have some self-recockingspect and do it properly like Mr Lance.
Anyway... I'm not trying to reason with you WBT, as that doesn't seem possible, but this was definitely a nice opportunity to post a joke Lance performance again.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Quintana definitely not. He's a class act. Froome's biggest threat. But he seems to be off to the Giro.rayjay wrote:
If say for instance Quintana or Contador beat Froome in next years tour are you not going to question their performance.....I would, the same way I question Froome's.
Contador - maybe, maybe not - it depends on the performance. He has served an actual ban, remember.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. But all too many people are unwilling to listen to the answers as they have already decided what they are. (Not necessarily you).rayjay wrote:For me there is almost 2 main issues. If Froome rode for another team and performed like that I would ask questions.
I think it would be crazy for Quintana to miss the tour. IMO he is the teams no 1 rider and with better tactics may have got a bit closer to Froome last year.
I could have things wrong and would be happy to concede if that was the case. But for me what we do know IMO adds up to a doped/PED team and I would come to that conclusion whatever team it was. I do think other teams are doping lets make that clear.
But IMO doping/PED's have always played a massive part in cycling and when I see performances like Froome's or
Horner's it's hard to believe that they are clean.0 -
rayjay wrote:But IMO doping/PED's have always played a massive part in cycling and when I see performances like Froome's or
Horner's it's hard to believe that they are clean.
That's fair enough.
I think what gets on people's tits is the in-your-face cynicism that tends to go along with this. The "yeah right, he did that clean " thing.
That and the relentless twisting and spinning of the Sky-are-dopers narrative, which needs a really good shave with Occam's razor.
Not having a go at you, btw.
PS - I also have trouble believing Horner's performance was clean. But as I've got nothing other than gut feeling about it I tend not to mention it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:andytee87 wrote:Right, that's my opinion, obviously people will have their own and I'm glad, the world would be boring otherwise. I'm going back to writing my report testing potential structural controls on a gold deposit- which has taken me 4 days of processing a 14,000+ point data set plus the 3 weeks of training I did back in March to ensure I could trust the data taken. I wish I could just get information from unverified sources on the internet and use them as fact, my life would be a lot easier
Chapeau.whiteboytrash wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Sod it, tonight's date cancelled.
Nothing to do....hmmm.....I know, I'll watch some old races and re-read Walsh's book. Great read. Bears a second go-through.
No one wonder she cancelled.
Nicely done. Stay classy.whiteboytrash wrote:I don't think anyone is unfairly accusing Sky of doping.whiteboytrash wrote:The fact there was little on Leinders is exactly the reason why you'd hire him.
A doping doctor you can invite around for dinner.
Perfect. A match made in heaven for ZTP Sky :shock:
The fact they off loaded him when everyone did finally joined the dots showing they were "found out".whiteboytrash wrote:
I said he was hired to ensure no one tested positive, not to run a doping program.
I rest my case.
And I rest mine.
Counsel you are referred to the term "unfairly". Along with the proposition that Leinders was not running a doping program.
Read. Just read instead of jumping to incorrect and fanatical conclusions.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Ventoux?
Would that be the one where after riding on the front for 4 hours at 50kph, Movistar
then sent Quintana on a solo attack, 40 minutes from the top?
Damn, with all these questions to be asked,
you'd think they would have asked about that wind direction. :roll:
Have no idea what you are talking about.
Even though my reply was to mfin, I think you understand well enough.
I'm sure it's pretty obvious to others.whiteboytrash wrote:
I'm sorry you're not making much sense.
Still banging on with those selective and meaningless times?
More sense than you, I reckon."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
mfin wrote:Oh sorry, yes, Froome put in an incredible attack, shot off up the road for abosultely ages, just like Lance on Hautacam. :roll:
Here you go, you like numbers so the rough ones are he's attacking with something like 7k to go if I remember right, taking 7mins out of the leader who was 7 1/2 mins ahead and about 10 mins on the climb over rivals(?). Hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0
It's actually worth watching WBT, and I think if we saw Froome do that to everyone then we'd all spit our sugarpuffs out, but he hasn't done anything like it. If Froome is beating people through doping then he should have some self-recockingspect and do it properly like Mr Lance.
Anyway... I'm not trying to reason with you WBT, as that doesn't seem possible, but this was definitely a nice opportunity to post a joke Lance performance again.
I know you're not trying to reason with me.
But do try reasoning with yourself.
Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
But fanatics tend to look for anything. Anything, I say.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:Ventoux?
Would that be the one where after riding on the front for 4 hours at 50kph, Movistar
then sent Quintana on a solo attack, 40 minutes from the top?
Damn, with all these questions to be asked,
you'd think they would have asked about that wind direction. :roll:
Have no idea what you are talking about.
Even though my reply was to mfin, I think you understand well enough.
I'm sure it's pretty obvious to others.whiteboytrash wrote:
I'm sorry you're not making much sense.
Still banging on with those selective and meaningless times?
More sense than you, I reckon.
You're entitled to your own opinion, yes.
Perhaps, as this is the Walsh thread, you could tell him also?
You know comparing Froome to Mayo's ITT etc.
Leave that with you. Let me know how you get on.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
But fanatics tend to look for anything. Anything, I say.
Thanks, and I have no idea why you would compare the times that you are referencing up the same mountain, in different circumstances, on different days and find them conclusive to doping.
Fanatic???? That's a bit rich of you! Brilliant. 0 -
mfin wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
But fanatics tend to look for anything. Anything, I say.
Thanks, and I have no idea why you would compare the times that you are referencing up the same mountain, in different circumstances, on different days and find them conclusive to doping.
Fanatic???? That's a bit rich of you! Brilliant.
Oh, I know why wbt is comparing those specific times.
It's because it's the closest he could find to when the flag went down and Froome launched his attack off Porte's pull.
Zero down time, just flat out, 20 minute maximum effort, unlike the others.
Add in a mostly favourable wind (deny this bit) and it becomes an exact sum; proof of doping. "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
mfin wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
But fanatics tend to look for anything. Anything, I say.
Thanks, and I have no idea why you would compare the times that you are referencing up the same mountain, in different circumstances, on different days and find them conclusive to doping.
Fanatic???? That's a bit rich of you! Brilliant.
Yes, I agree, you have no idea.
Sport is comparisons. That's what fans do. That's what bookmakers do. That's what statisticians do.
That's how odds are created.
People gamble a lot of money on comparsions and historic form.
So yes comparing Ventoux 2013 to previous years makes sense. The road stages, yes.
Test match to test match.
Of course you can compare two different mountains in two different a years. Not sure what it would mean?
Other than to a fanatic who can't see past the obvious that conclusions draw are highly limited.0 -
Because that would be comparing peak performances, which is more relevant to the peak standard. Rather than comparing a peak performance with an average one just because they happened at the same venue.whiteboytrash wrote:
Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
As for fanatics. You've only posted on this thread. You never discuss anything regarding cycling other than Sky doping. (The last thread you contributed to was about Wiggins).
You are only capable of one thought it would seem (and that appears to mostly copy and pasted from the Clinic)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:mfin wrote:whiteboytrash wrote:Have no idea why you would compare Lance on Hatucam to Froome on Ventoux.
But fanatics tend to look for anything. Anything, I say.
Thanks, and I have no idea why you would compare the times that you are referencing up the same mountain, in different circumstances, on different days and find them conclusive to doping.
Fanatic???? That's a bit rich of you! Brilliant.
Oh, I know why wbt is comparing those specific times.
It's because it's the closest he could find to when the flag went down and Froome launched his attack off Porte's pull.
Zero down time, just flat out, 20 minute maximum effort, unlike the others.
Add in a mostly favourable wind (deny this bit) and it becomes an exact sum; proof of doping.
You are fanatical are you not?
I've never said it's proof of doping.
Just suspicion. Just questions.
The reason I take it from 7.1km out as that's where Froome attacked Contador.
And the last 2km were a headwind.
I assume you ride a bike, yes? Ever ridden 232km? Think a tailwind all the way to Ventoux when riding 50km p/he will make you less tired or more tired?
Cadel and other said they were shot at the base.
Not Froome. He hasn't even begun his adventure.0
This discussion has been closed.
