Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19652133#p19652133]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:You can really see how Wiggins got sick of this, can't you?
Froome raises a good point though. What do these people want from him? He points out holes in the OOC schedule, he engages with CIRC, he praises the efforts of anti doping, calls for nighttime testing.
If Sky are on a massive, organised doping programme then you must also be doubting the utility of the bio passport, all the testing etc etc.
I'm not saying Sky are clean or dirty but did riders not submit to CIRC that it was still possible to get away with microdosing.
Yes, which was conjecture with no evidence - as was 1 person saying 90% of the Pro peloton were at it, and another saying 20%. So which is it to be? All we learnt from CIRC was that CIRC was a waste of time and money - no compulsion to attend, no way of verfying or compelling people to tell the truth, and no real conclusions drawn.
So who fecking knows.0 -
Personally I would worry more about the way Astana rode in the Giro and about certain riders that have gone from superstar to also-ran. In the modern era it may be possible to dope, but thanks to the constant efforts of the authorities you can't just use some new wonder drug for the next 10 years. One day you get a call from your man on the inside, who tells you they now have a test for it. Suddenly you are no longer still in the GC group with 5km to go on the final mountain in the Tour, unless you find an alternative, but what will that do to your biological passport? It is the modern era riders that are consistently good over multiple seasons that I actually have more faith in, which is probably the opposite of many people.
As for Sky, they are a squad of top 10-15 quality GC riders all riding for their best GC guy. What Froome did yesterday was impressive, but Contador was way off his best (Nibali too obviously). Quintana obviously did well, but he didn't look particularly sharp either. In fact, where is the whole of last year's podium? Last year's Dauphine winner Talansky? I'd argue that it wasn't a case of Sky doing well, but a bizarre combination of the majority of contenders having really bad days, which helped to make Froome's performance look super strong.0 -
You've also got to ask yourself why you are watching.
If a rider riding like Chris Froome upsets you that much, why bother watching?
It's a race, people will be faster than others.
If you really hate doping that much, and you really feel what you're watching is, why bother?
It's not particularly brave throwing mud at riders just on the basis of their performance. It's lazy.
Remember, during the '00s, there was a lot of actual evidence beyond what happened on the road to suggest that doping was occurring. Testing old samples, catching teams dumping medical waste, catching team cars full to the brim with drugs, police staking out doctors, riders dying in their sleep, etc etc.
I haven't seen anyone bring that kind of evidence to light. All people are saying is that someone rode really fast in the world's biggest bike race, and that someone rode faster than the others. No sh!t.0 -
Personally I would worry more about the way Astana rode in the Giro and about certain riders that have gone from superstar to also-ran.
This is fairly easy to explain without doping.
Quality of Giro field < Quality of Tour field.
Significantly.
That and the riders in the giro are not the riders in the tour - for both astana and their rivals.0 -
I am a keen follower of the TdF, the other GTs and the occasional classic. It is gripping stuff.
Even when the best access was in the printed press, I found it gripping. Summers spent in France as a young man gave me TV access to The Tour in cafes. Occasionally dull, but usually rivetting. I still feel that way - but now with an extraordinary amount of broadcast and online access.
I always thought the pro-peloton was dirty and it mattered not one jot to me. We choose our heroes but despite the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when they fall or are proved to be liars, the reality is that we have little or nothing of ourselves invested in them.
'98 was a funny one. Dirty TdF. Lots of legal issues. Bizarre behaviour mid-stage. A doper won in the place of other dopers. Honestly, I loved it. I had a huge regard for Pantani.
Then '99 was the clean Tour. It was all behind them now. Who really believed (at the time) that it was clean?
Stage racing is a sport which invites the use of marginal gains by questionable methods. The sheer physical effort makes it almost expected.
I did not think cycling (at the top level) was clean in the days of Indurain, nor LeMond, not Hinault. I did not think it clean in '99 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002. I do not think it is clean today.
Indeed, there is more money in it today than in the days when it was seen as 'super-dirty'. PEDs normally follow money. There is more money today.
We all have our heroes. There are those who refuse to believe that Cadel juiced, because he was such a tough, likeable Ocker. He was introduced to road racing by Michele Ferrari. But he was clean. Because we loved him.
Similarly, people refuse to believe other riders are dirty because they feel they have some cultural or emotional link with them. I would be surprised to see proof that the top three in any of the jerseys (in the years they were contested) has been 100% clean in my lifetime. I was born in the early '60s.
I do not think Sky are clean, but it matters not one jot to me. I love road racing, warts and all.
I do not feel betrayed by the dopers. I have always assumed their ubiquity and admire them nonetheless.0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.0
-
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
Gotta break the rulez before you can get banned
. 0 -
Apropos not very much...
Why do so many observers ignore the performance enhancing effect of winning?
I guess it demonstrates that many have not been at the sharp end of any races.
From personal experience (on a lower level obvs), I have certainly under performed when I know I'm beaten. Likewise, I've managed to put an unexpected amount of time into close rivals once the result is beyond doubt.
Even the impact of pressure / expectation / current standings is massively significant.
To me, this is the obvious explanation for why one rider can be apparently dominant on any given day / tour - in terms of physiology there probably isn't much difference. I believe SDB said that he believes that the most significant performance gains are to be found in the head not the body. Act like a winner and you will become one.
Frank Abagnale Snr hits the nail on the head - why do the Yankees always win?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDHaAwKXj0s
Of course, SDB made exactly the same play with his rounder wheels routine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDJMrBP7QNY0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
Gotta break the rulez before you can get banned.
I'm not suggesting banning them, just ignore them.0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
hear hear... it's got very tedious over the last 48 hours. Actually glad that I'm going to be out on the road and now spending as much time here over the next couple of weeks. Looking forward to a return to sanity with San Sebasian and Eneco.0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
hear hear... it's got very tedious over the last 48 hours. Actually glad that I'm going to be out on the road and now spending as much time here over the next couple of weeks. Looking forward to a return to sanity with San Sebasian and Eneco.
I think they'd be more entertaining if I were on some grade A recreational pharmaceuticals, but FF won't let me take them :-(Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
They have taken over Twitter with the slightly scary obsessive viewpoints.The number of accusatory Berto fans tonight is something to behold. Wow!
I have riders I like and support but not with this level of devotion and with the assumption that any rider that finishes ahead of my man must have doped.0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
hear hear... it's got very tedious over the last 48 hours. Actually glad that I'm going to be out on the road and now spending as much time here over the next couple of weeks. Looking forward to a return to sanity with San Sebasian and Eneco.
I think they'd be more entertaining if I were on some grade A recreational pharmaceuticals, but FF won't let me take them :-(
0 -
Can we just rename this topic to
"Is SkyLimit a troll or not"
And then despite the fact that we already know what we think about this debate it nevertheless
I am a troll because I believe there might be doping in cycling?0 -
Can we just rename this topic to
"Is SkyLimit a troll or not"
And then despite the fact that we already know what we think about this debate it nevertheless
I am a troll because I believe there might be doping in cycling?
16 posts - all in this thread. :roll:0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
It's not a problem when contained in a thread specifically about doping. It's amusing, and a minor public service, to see clinicians try to form arguments outside their echo-chamber....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
It's not a problem when contained in a thread specifically about doping. It's amusing, and a minor public service, to see clinicians try to form arguments outside their echo-chamber.
I like arguments to be linear and logical. This is like trying to argue with a fractal from the Mandelbrot set.
Each stage, each climb, zooms the focus in again, to be repeated in eternity, with the same arguments again and again.
And at the same time, you've got to try and remember a quote from Brailsford in 2010, cross referenced with something else from Kerrison in 2012, something slightly contradictory that Wiggins said in 2013 as an aside in a 2 minute interview and a press statement from Froome from earlier this year - all interpreted through the lens of an obscure Norwegian physiologist who gave a dummies guide to doping and power interview to a Dutch tabloid.... And that's just for a minor supporting point.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I reckon there's a strong correlation between these barmpots and 9/11 truthers - you cannot have a discussion with these people
There was one guy on Twitter (F*ck the Hypocrisy or something) who's tweeting himself into an early grave.2015 Cervelo S3
2016 Santa Cruz 5010
2016 Genesis Croix de Fer0 -
I just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.0
-
I just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
Well we're working on the same evidence as you and drawing a differing conclusion. Such is life, hey?"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 just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
Well done 6 pages.
I don't think that's what people are saying though is it. They are saying that until they see some evidence that Sky are doping then they are quite happy to take the sport they enjoy watching at face value.
Thanks for your concern though.0 -
It's called reason.I just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
And there is only limited conviction - it's just faith in the scientific method.
http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-the-scientific-method-works/
[P.S. this series of podcasts is just about the best thing on the whole internet].
(also worth noting that there isn't much love lost on Froome as 'a person' - not that anyone knows him).0 -
Seriously, what is it with you lot and your determination to indulge the trolls? You all know that you're playing into their hands arguing back as you know that that is exactly what they want. No matter the logic of your argument, it won't convince them. So, are you actually just indulging yourselves? Fine, but it spoils the tone of the whole board.
Gotta break the rulez before you can get banned.
Spelling rules with a z? Sorry, you're banned.0 -
I reckon there's a strong correlation between these barmpots and 9/11 truthers - you cannot have a discussion with these people
There was one guy on Twitter (F*ck the Hypocrisy or something) who's tweeting himself into an early grave.
I would think the truthers would be people who blindly believe things they read in the media about how clean sky are?0 -
I just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
That says more to me about the sort of corners of the internet you might inhabit. Have you ever thought about getting out more?0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19652405#p19652405]disgruntledgoat[/url] wrote:I just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
Well we're working on the same evidence as you and drawing a differing conclusion. Such is life, hey?
SkyLimit is trying to turn it into a binary debate (where he "knows" sky are doping and the rest of us are convinced he isn't):SkyLimit wrote:I am a troll because I believe there might be doping in cycling?
Most of us are fully aware that there is definitely doping in cycling (as evidenced by the fact that riders still test positive... Although we seem to disagree on the extent of this doping).0 -
I reckon there's a strong correlation between these barmpots and 9/11 truthers - you cannot have a discussion with these people
There was one guy on Twitter (F*ck the Hypocrisy or something) who's tweeting himself into an early grave.
I would think the truthers would be people who blindly believe things they read in the media about how clean sky are?
Close your eyes and describe, in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother"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 just wanted to know how this little corner on the internet has such firm convitions that sky are clean. Never seen anything like it anywhere.
While you have our attention, give us the top 3 reasons that have you so convinced. Ta...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
I reckon there's a strong correlation between these barmpots and 9/11 truthers - you cannot have a discussion with these people
There was one guy on Twitter (F*ck the Hypocrisy or something) who's tweeting himself into an early grave.
I would think the truthers would be people who blindly believe things they read in the media about how clean sky are?
It's got nothing to do with belief for anyone with logic. It's to do with evidence. Speculation based on absolute rubbish is not what logical people do. You're also loading things with imagining that people are defending Sky because of some blind allegiance, not many people are like that, they keep their views on doping impartial and independent.
I for one could not care less about any cycling team itself, that's the reserve of blinkered fans, and I will only look at doping from the point of evidence. When there is some evidence, please come back and post some on any team or rider you like. Yesterday showed no evidence yet you probably started the thread because you thought yesterdays stage showed some evidence, it showed absolutely nothing, nothing of the sort. You're actually making yourself look like someone with an agenda who is thick. Is that your intention? Probably not, but that's what's happening in my opinion.0 -
SkyLimit, wit all due respect the evidence you've presented in this thread is that Sky win a lot, while Armstrong and his teams didn't win by a lot. It's not exactly compelling (or accurate) stuff you've brought to your thread.0
