Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Has nighttime testing now started?
Only out of competition IIRC.
Sorry, missed this. Thank you.
They are doing nighttime tests during the race.
Reportedly, pinch of salt and all that, they can only do night tests at the moment if acting on specific information regarding doping.0 -
Guess not.
That'd f*ck me off to be honest.
I'm a light sleeper however tired I am and a hefty night disturbance and having to force a p!ss out in the middle of the night would really stop me sleeping.
You youngsters know nothing. Just wait till your prostate starts acting up. You'll be longing for the nights when you only had to get up once for a pee
0 -
i thought i can't get more ridiculous than this
some mechanic worked 6 months some 16 years ago somewhere and now he is employed somewhere at a deposit in Belgium. big news
lol0 -
For the love of all that is holy can a mechanic not get a job because he happened to be a mechanic for someone who was naughty 16 years ago? How many people have to be punished by association? This isn't Greece. Unless the man was guilty of putting motors in Lance's bike then he shouldn't be denied employment or be the subject of idle innuendo and muckraking by a bunch of narcissists.
And that is all I am going to say on the matter.
Of course they can. The vast majority of people do. It just happens to be your favourite team that doesn't think so. So maybe you can send a letter to Brailsford against all the people they have removed from their jobs due to association?
Frenchie this makes no sense. Sky have no problem employing him, it's the holier-than-though-dogmatic-rent-an-outrage-mob that have the problem not me and not apparently Sky.
What am I missing? Sky have a unique policy of not employing people who have links to doping (I understand being a soigneur doesn't make him a doper). So you think he is ok but the others that have booted out are not? Or you think the whole idea is silly?
Personally I think the whole idea is silly.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Has nighttime testing now started?
Only out of competition IIRC.
Sorry, missed this. Thank you.
They are doing nighttime tests during the race.
Reportedly, pinch of salt and all that, they can only do night tests at the moment if acting on specific information regarding doping.
But the riders don't know if they are on the hitlist or not.0 -
Interesting.
And we're seeing several riders who were on fire last year suddenly riding like drains.
Peraud, Bardet, Pinot, Nibali.....
THEY MUST HAVE DOPED LAST YEAR
Why isn't this the doping agenda right now? Seems more telling than Froome riding well if you're inclined to think like this.
That is actually what I think; and I've thought it about several other riders over the years. If we go back to a certain GC winner in 2004 who has subsequently won very little that even comes close then he would be my best example of who this sort of innuendo might be directed at...<a><img></a>0 -
For the love of all that is holy can a mechanic not get a job because he happened to be a mechanic for someone who was naughty 16 years ago? How many people have to be punished by association? This isn't Greece. Unless the man was guilty of putting motors in Lance's bike then he shouldn't be denied employment or be the subject of idle innuendo and muckraking by a bunch of narcissists.
And that is all I am going to say on the matter.
Of course they can. The vast majority of people do. It just happens to be your favourite team that doesn't think so. So maybe you can send a letter to Brailsford against all the people they have removed from their jobs due to association?
Frenchie this makes no sense. Sky have no problem employing him, it's the holier-than-though-dogmatic-rent-an-outrage-mob that have the problem not me and not apparently Sky.
What am I missing? Sky have a unique policy of not employing people who have links to doping (I understand being a soigneur doesn't make him a doper). So you think he is ok but the others that have booted out are not? Or you think the whole idea is silly?
Personally I think the whole idea is silly.
I think you'll find that should read direct links. i.e. personally involved.
All the teams have links to doping, therefore Sky should employ no one with pro employment on their cv.
But of course, you know that."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Interesting.
And we're seeing several riders who were on fire last year suddenly riding like drains.
Peraud, Bardet, Pinot, Nibali.....
THEY MUST HAVE DOPED LAST YEAR
Why isn't this the doping agenda right now? Seems more telling than Froome riding well if you're inclined to think like this.
That is actually what I think; and I've thought it about several other riders over the years. If we go back to a certain GC winner in 2004 who has subsequently won very little that even comes close then he would be my best example of who this sort of innuendo might be directed at...
And you've really never considered why, were this the case, they just wouldn't dope this year too? Is the testing environment really so different than it was 12 months ago?
Cunego all but admitted he doped his way to the 2004 Giro, but then rode clean afterwards when he became a father in that winter. 3 Tours of Lombardy not to be sniffed at post his Giro win, I wouldn't have thought."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19653740#p19653740]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:For the love of all that is holy can a mechanic not get a job because he happened to be a mechanic for someone who was naughty 16 years ago? How many people have to be punished by association? This isn't Greece. Unless the man was guilty of putting motors in Lance's bike then he shouldn't be denied employment or be the subject of idle innuendo and muckraking by a bunch of narcissists.
And that is all I am going to say on the matter.
Of course they can. The vast majority of people do. It just happens to be your favourite team that doesn't think so. So maybe you can send a letter to Brailsford against all the people they have removed from their jobs due to association?
Frenchie this makes no sense. Sky have no problem employing him, it's the holier-than-though-dogmatic-rent-an-outrage-mob that have the problem not me and not apparently Sky.
What am I missing? Sky have a unique policy of not employing people who have links to doping (I understand being a soigneur doesn't make him a doper). So you think he is ok but the others that have booted out are not? Or you think the whole idea is silly?
Personally I think the whole idea is silly.
I think you'll find that should read direct links. i.e. personally involved.
All the teams have links to doping, therefore Sky should employ no one with pro employment on their cv.
But of course, you know that.
Is there anyone who has been in cycling for 10 years or more with absolutely no links to doping?0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19653741#p19653741]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Interesting.
And we're seeing several riders who were on fire last year suddenly riding like drains.
Peraud, Bardet, Pinot, Nibali.....
THEY MUST HAVE DOPED LAST YEAR
Why isn't this the doping agenda right now? Seems more telling than Froome riding well if you're inclined to think like this.
That is actually what I think; and I've thought it about several other riders over the years. If we go back to a certain GC winner in 2004 who has subsequently won very little that even comes close then he would be my best example of who this sort of innuendo might be directed at...
And you've really never considered why, were this the case, they just wouldn't dope this year too? Is the testing environment really so different than it was 12 months ago?
Cunego all but admitted he doped his way to the 2004 Giro, but then rode clean afterwards when he became a father in that winter. 3 Tours of Lombardy not to be sniffed at post his Giro win, I wouldn't have thought.
Yes. The threat of nighttime testing. So, hugely different.0 -
Do you not reckon that a fit and motivated Contador, Quintana and Froome with good teams around them, a tough first week with a lot of crashes and splits and a mahooosive stack up in stage 3 might have something to do with their fluctuating form?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19653741#p19653741]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:
And you've really never considered why, were this the case, they just wouldn't dope this year too? Is the testing environment really so different than it was 12 months ago?
Cunego all but admitted he doped his way to the 2004 Giro, but then rode clean afterwards when he became a father in that winter. 3 Tours of Lombardy not to be sniffed at post his Giro win, I wouldn't have thought.
I didn't actually know that he had admitted to doping, and yes he has done well - just not in comparison to smashing it in the Giro.
I think not everyone is like Armstrong - they might think it is worth doping to win a tour de france but not want to take the risk of getting caught by taking the michael throughout their entire career.
I'm not saying that those riders definitely did dope last year or ever because of course there can be a million reasons why form would change year to year but given what we know about cycling it wouldn't be the biggest surprise ever.<a><img></a>0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19653750#p19653750]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Do you not reckon that a fit and motivated Contador, Quintana and Froome with good teams around them, a tough first week with a lot of crashes and splits and a mahooosive stack up in stage 3 might have something to do with their fluctuating form?
Possibly. Who knows who is/has been doping. I guess we will find out one way or another. I suspect there will e a few riders whose best performances are now just a distant memory.0 -
I don't know why anyone would find it surprising that a rider might dope one year and not another. Doping's a risk because you might get caught - the more you do it the more likely you are to get caught.<a><img></a>0
-
Interesting.
And we're seeing several riders who were on fire last year suddenly riding like drains.
Peraud, Bardet, Pinot, Nibali.....
THEY MUST HAVE DOPED LAST YEAR
Why isn't this the doping agenda right now? Seems more telling than Froome riding well if you're inclined to think like this.
That is actually what I think; and I've thought it about several other riders over the years. If we go back to a certain GC winner in 2004 who has subsequently won very little that even comes close then he would be my best example of who this sort of innuendo might be directed at...
Agreed, IMHO this is the real story. Froome is doing what we expect him to do, the rest of last year's podium are well down on where they were then. Interesting that last 4 tour winners have had poor seasons the year after. An inference you could make is that the level required to win the tour clean is unsustainable? Other inferences are of course available.
As for this soigneur story, is there any evidence this guy has done anything wrong? If it is purely based on guilt by association then it is just muck raking0 -
I don't know why anyone would find it surprising that a rider might dope one year and not another. Doping's a risk because you might get caught - the more you do it the more likely you are to get caught.
The JTL case suggests that quitting is dangerous....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I don't know why anyone would find it surprising that a rider might dope one year and not another. Doping's a risk because you might get caught - the more you do it the more likely you are to get caught.
Or in the case of the bio passport, the less consistently you do it, the more likely you are to get caught"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Interesting that last 4 tour winners have had poor seasons the year after. An inference you could make is that the level required to win the tour clean is unsustainable? Other inferences are of course available.
It's also common for world champions to do very little whilst wearing the rainbow stripes. It's probably difficult for top riders to maintain the very high level of fitness and motivation for an extended period. As Bradley Wiggins discovered, it takes its toll in unexpected ways.
I also think last year's surprise TdF packages aren't doing terribly this year, if you compare them to Nibali and others who were in the race rather than Froome who wasn't.0 -
My alternative theory is that the recent winners of the Tour have all been first time winners. When you win the Tour then other non-cycling distractions come along. The celebrity, the commercial opportunties etc. And riders get pulled away from doing the hard work until early the following year.Interesting that last 4 tour winners have had poor seasons the year after. An inference you could make is that the level required to win the tour clean is unsustainable? Other inferences are of course available.
It's also common for world champions to do very little whilst wearing the rainbow stripes. It's probably difficult for top riders to maintain the very high level of fitness and motivation for an extended period. As Bradley Wiggins discovered, it takes its toll in unexpected ways.
I also think last year's surprise TdF packages aren't doing terribly this year, if you compare them to Nibali and others who were in the race rather than Froome who wasn't.
By contrast the last four winners came in the top four in the previous year's Vuelta - meaning the went intl the off seaso in good shape.Twitter: @RichN950 -
http://sporza.be/cm/sporza/wielrennen/Tour/1.2392825[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19653379#p19653379]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:Sven Nys' coach not a fan of Froome. He uses todays big Sporza interview to ask how Froome can look anorexic and still have the same power.
That he doesn't give any indication of using anything more than guesstimations of Power (6.1w/g is the number he's bandying about) and that his insight into Froome's weight is "somebody who knew Froome when he lived in Belgium" who says he used to be 80KG and is now 66KG, isn't held up to any scrutiny.
I thought reducing weight but keeping power was what cycling coaching was all about these days?
He is at pains to point out that he doesn't suspect doping, just supplements and diet pills that aren't banned but should be. So that's ok.0 -
Not much joy for the PE teacher today.
Froome only a measly 5.9w/kg. (allowing for their bit of number massaging)
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654216#p19654216]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:Not much joy for the PE teacher today.
Froome only a measly 5.9w/kg. (allowing for their bit of number massaging)
Won't that be G's number? Froome was in the wheels.
Bet SkyLimit regrets getting banned so soon....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654216#p19654216]Blazing Saddles[/url] wrote:Not much joy for the PE teacher today.
Froome only a measly 5.9w/kg. (allowing for their bit of number massaging)
The sour grapes on Velorooms will continue. They are getting really boring now.0 -
I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
What evidence?
And the boom in cycling viewing and participation would seem to suggest it's not all that damaging"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
Just Sky huh? Yes that must be it. The most vehemently anti-doping team must be doping more than teams chock full of convicted dopers, doping doctors and dopings DSs.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19654331#p19654331]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
What evidence?
And the boom in cycling viewing and participation would seem to suggest it's not all that damaging
This is done to death elsewhere so I'll keep it to the key evidence: the massive improvement in Froome from nearly being key go in 2011 to being the greatest cyclist of all time. And the massive change of Thomas from trackie and classics rider to mountain goat. All experience suggests that in the past that would later be explained by doping. Doesn't mean it is etc. But blind certainty that it's not doping is not rational.
Re fans, the UK is something of an exception.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
I don't see how any one can in good conscience genuinely be so sure they aren't. There is so much evidence that more suggests doping than pillows or nutella or whatever crap the pr machine spews out.
Bias aside, there can be no rational response other than "we don't know either way, but experience suggests that everyone else in the past doing what Sky are showing us was later found to be doping".
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
Just Sky huh? Yes that must be it. The most vehemently anti-doping team must be doping more than teams chock full of convicted dopers, doping doctors and dopings DSs.
Again, bias aside, the most vehemently anti doping teams in the past have been shown to be doping. It is irrational bias to use that as an argument either way.Merckx EMX 5
Ribble 7005 Audax / Campag Centaur
RIP - Scott Speedster S100 -
My view is that either way, it's ugly to watch and it's really damaging for cycling.
Sky aren't winning more or less than any other team, but as a thought experiment let's pretend their team bus is abducted tomorrow by aliens wanting to take Froome home or something.
All Sky are doing is trying to win a grand tour in the way that teams have forever - get a decent pile of riders, make them work for the strongest one, and riding hard enough to make it hard for anyone else to attack them. So anyway, in our Skyless world, what will happen? Another team will take up the role (see- well, see any grand tour).
How is this situation better or worse for the sport than if it's Sky doing it?0 -
The problem is that you're not trying to define what you'd expect from non-'ugly' cycling, so it's impossible to work out if you're a lunatic, a visionary, or just someone who doesn't understand how bike racing works. All you're doing is throwing mud at Sky, rather than letting anyone know what criteria you're working from - it's essentially an uncriticisable position because the position isn't actually stated.
So here's the challenge. Tell us all what clean cycling would look like in your own mind's eye, and then we can all debate whether that's plausible and works from realistic assumptions. Then, and only then, can we start looking at the evidence for whether Sky fulfils that criteria or not - and even then we might not agree. We might have learnt something though.
Repeatedly shouting that Sky are a pile of dopers and bad for the sport is an opinion. Let's start hearing an argument instead.0
