Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
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?
Except there's not actually that many of them on here... Most people seem to have a reasonably balanced opinion on the matter, e.g., he could be but at the moment there is no real evidence of it so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as any actual evidence shows up (just re-read the first page...)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.
For me there are several reasons:
1. I think the incentive to dope isn't there for sky.
Thier reason for existing is publically stated to be to win races clean. 100's of people are tied up in this "dream". So if they are doping to win they are achieving nothing (and no they are achieving nothing, so why would they)
2. The reasons not to dope are bigger than the reasons to dope.
Doping might increase your chances of winning races and making some dosh. BUT given he close links between Sky & British cycling the incentives to be clean far outweigh the ones to cheat. A major doping scandal within Sky would not only mean 100's of people losing their jobs, and potentially having past earnings clawed back. It would destroy the credibility or British Cycling. BC are one of the figureheads for the Olympics and for sports funding from the lottery. I suspect that if sky fell, BC would go with it, and the knock on effects to the whole funding of Team GB would be devastated.
tl;dr they can't afford to dope
3. Testing
I know there are still flaws in testing, but it is much better than it was, so the risks of getting caught are higher. This means that 1. & 2. above would weigh much more heavily on the mind of anyone tempted to dope.
4. David Walsh
DW spent so much of his time and energy on the LA stuff I think any thought that he might condone doping anywhere is ridiculous (yes I know he tended to ignore the Irish riders). Having read (twice) his book 'inside team sky' he is pretty convincing that he couldn't see any evidence that made him suspect doping (after spending a year with the team if you haven't read it)
5. Budget
Why would anyone spend so much money on the non doping performance enhancement typified by marginal gains if everyone is getting great out of a syringe?
6, Wiggins
While not being the worlds biggest Wiggo fan I do completely buy his assertion that he couldn't dope because of the personal impact of being caught from his friends and relations
7. Lack of evidence
The Sky are doping meme has been doing the rounds for years. The scrutiny the team are under is immense and not a single thread of evidence (outside the twittersphere) have been uncovered. The balance of probability is that if they were doping something would have come to light by now.
8. I want to just enjoy cycling
Not just sky, but everyone. After the nightmare years of the past i want to just sit back and watch a race without doubting what I am seeing. So for me it will stay innocent until proven guilty.0 -
^^ Agree with most of what phil said above.
Also this makes a couple of interesting points
http://tourdefranceontv.co.uk/chris-froome-is-the-fastest-climber-hows-his-endurance/
in particularEach year, the Tour de France’s Big Mountain Sort-Out also coincides with World Cynicism Day (or perhaps World Naivety Day, depending on your perspective). This year, the big question is how can Team Sky be so strong? With three riders in the top six, it’s certainly a striking performance.
Cycling fans have had some pretty spectacular tales of naughtiness to take in over the years, but when it comes to conspiracies, I’m always inclined towards a view that the truth is generally a lot more boring than you imagine. Before drawing dramatic conclusions, remember that Sky have one very obvious advantage over almost all the other teams.
Marginal gains? What about profit margins? The team has flashed the cash and bought and retained many of the strongest riders in the peloton.
Nicolas Roche has two top six finishes in the Vuelta a Espana and I would estimate that he is Sky’s sixth or seventh strongest climber. Peter Kennaugh is the British national champion reduced to doing donkey work. Leopold Konig has never finished outside the top ten in any Grand Tour in which he’s taken part and he’s carrying water bottles.
Is it really so unbelievable that Richie Porte should finish second on the stage? He’s been the UCI’s top-ranked rider most of the year and is fresh as a daisy having spent the first week of the race dicking about at the back, losing 45 minutes on Froome and the other frontrunners.
And Froome himself? Well presumably he’s team leader for a reason.
Not saying that Sky are definitely clean, but there are other things at work here that makes me willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for now.0 -
I was going to come here and post a similar question today, the reason - because I'm relatively new to pro racing and have a lot of friends asking "do you think he's doping" etc, and tbh I don't feel qualified to answer that question with any authority.
Perhaps if I had posed the original question then I wouldn't be lambasted as a troll because iv been on the forum a while, any how, I'm glad someone has (regardless of their reasons for doing so) so I could read the arguments.
For what it's worth I want to believe Froome is clean because I like him and don't think he or Sky would do this.
I do have some genuine questions though,
- how would they get away with doping? Are there not strict tests bearing in mind cycling a history
- exactly what is being alluded to by the statement "sky push the envelope"?
- it seems to me sky just have a very strong team atm, does another team have the strength in depth of sky?
- what's the general consensus on contador and Nibali and their recent wins?
- are we not jumping the gun a little after all we are only
One MTF in so far?One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
- Fair question - during the so called EPO years people came up with ways of beating the tests. As EPO is naturally occuring it's hard to develop a totally watertight, catch all test. Plus then there are other mysterious substances being developed that could be used to enhance performance
-Sky have the budget - and the desire - to push the rules as far as they can in terms of rider care, kit, etc. Cynics would say that this means they will also push what they inject too
- No, they are clearly the best team at building and preparing a 9 man team to ride a 3 week race
- Nibali is nt on it this year, Bertie is tired from the Giro. Given the intense training necessary to compete for the Tour GC nowadays it is possible that it is too much to do from year to year or to keep up for the necessary time to do the double
- Yes - but in modern times these gaps are chasms. It will take a massive off day for Froome to lose this or an exceptional effort by the other contenders (and probably a combination of the two)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Could SkyLimit explain why 5.6 w/kg is extraordinary, or winning a mountain stage by one minute is extraordinary?0
-
I was going to come here and post a similar question today, the reason - because I'm relatively new to pro racing and have a lot of friends asking "do you think he's doping" etc, and tbh I don't feel qualified to answer that question with any authority.
Perhaps if I had posed the original question then I wouldn't be lambasted as a troll because iv been on the forum a while, any how, I'm glad someone has (regardless of their reasons for doing so) so I could read the arguments.
For what it's worth I want to believe Froome is clean because I like him and don't think he or Sky would do this.
I do have some genuine questions though,
- how would they get away with doping? Are there not strict tests bearing in mind cycling a history
- exactly what is being alluded to by the statement "sky push the envelope"?
- it seems to me sky just have a very strong team atm, does another team have the strength in depth of sky?
- what's the general consensus on contador and Nibali and their recent wins?
- are we not jumping the gun a little after all we are only
One MTF in so far?
People have got away with cheating forever. The old adage is the testers are always one step behind, however very few get away with it in cycling forever. Just look at the list of who's who in cycling's dark history. Whether caught at the time, or years later, for the most part cheats end up caught.
Sky "push the envelope" is a way for someone to feign inside knowledge. The UCI and WADA may not know about it yet, but those secret few definitely know.
Sky do have a ridiculously strong squad. Tinkoff also have a strong squad, but they just rode the Giro - something which was probably a little silly. Astana's leader is way out of form, so impossible to judge exactly how strong his team would be, but if recent history is any judge they'd be very strong. Movistar were very strong yesterday, riding hard from the bottom, and still put 2 riders in the top 5.
Personally I think on top form Froome is comfortably the best grand tour rider in the world. It was accentuated yesterday in that 2 of the top 4 other riders in the world are not at their best.0 -
Could SkyLimit explain why 5.6 w/kg is extraordinary, or winning a mountain stage by one minute is extraordinary?
No, because he's not interested in posting anything useful or responding to any legitimate questions, just trolling.0 -
Yeah I think they are clean - I can see why you ask the question as if Astana had done what Sky had done today it'd be used as further evidence they are juiced - but of course Astana have previous so it's not unreasonable to make an assume the worst of them and give Sky the benefit of any doubt.
I think what sky did today was even more dominant than what Astana did.
So you asked the question having seemingly already made up your mind on the answer. Brilliant.0 -
Could SkyLimit explain why 5.6 w/kg is extraordinary, or winning a mountain stage by one minute is extraordinary?
No, because he's not interested in posting anything useful or responding to any legitimate questions, just trolling.
Yes, basically saying "That Froome, eh? Nudge nudge, wink, know what I mean?"
If he gave a reasoned answer as to why he thinks this way you could at least respect the opinion, if not share it.0 -
I was going to come here and post a similar question today, the reason - because I'm relatively new to pro racing and have a lot of friends asking "do you think he's doping" etc, and tbh I don't feel qualified to answer that question with any authority.
Perhaps if I had posed the original question then I wouldn't be lambasted as a troll because iv been on the forum a while, any how, I'm glad someone has (regardless of their reasons for doing so) so I could read the arguments.
For what it's worth I want to believe Froome is clean because I like him and don't think he or Sky would do this.
I do have some genuine questions though,
- how would they get away with doping? Are there not strict tests bearing in mind cycling a history
- exactly what is being alluded to by the statement "sky push the envelope"?
- it seems to me sky just have a very strong team atm, does another team have the strength in depth of sky?
- what's the general consensus on contador and Nibali and their recent wins?
- are we not jumping the gun a little after all we are only
One MTF in so far?
I used the phrase 'push the envelope'. To clarify, I meant activities that stretch their ZTP claims, e.g. Michael Barry's admission of Tramadol use at Sky (http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/04/news/sky-avoids-barry-allegations-says-current-riders-dont-use-tramadol_325617). It wasn't banned, still isn't (AFAIK), and is alleged to be used by other teams also, but its use strikes many as unethical. Sky have subsequently asked for it to be banned but the story indicates an interest in trying this kind of thing out.
See Walsh also regarding Froome's TUE:
http://www.givemesport.com/478575-david-walsh-accuses-team-sky-of-slipping-ethical-standards
As I said earlier, I don't think there's an old-school program going on here.0 -
Thierry Gouvenou, technical director of the Tour de France said that Gallopin, not known as a climber, being 2 minutes from Froome yesterday, was the day's extraordinary performance not one of the world's best climbers winning a stage by a minute.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Higher proportion of rationalists on here that's all.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.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
The most obvious Troll question ever?
"I want to know what you think" closely followed by a number of posts stating what our friend already believes.
PLEASE, go back to the clinic. You can read exactly what you want to hear and confirm your beliefs there.
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.
While you have our attention, give us the top 3 reasons that have you so convinced. Ta
top 3 reasons for what?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.
While you have our attention, give us the top 3 reasons that have you so convinced. Ta
top 3 reasons for what?
You're not really very good at this, are you?
We used to get proper trolls, who'd do their research, drag arguments into endless tangential spirals of minor detail, post links to obscure Norwegian physiologists quoted in Dutch tabloids....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
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
top 3 reasons for what?
You're not really very good at this, are you?
We used to get proper trolls, who'd do their research, drag arguments into endless tangential spirals of minor detail, post links to obscure Norwegian physiologists quoted in Dutch tabloids....
This is obviously a baby troll, the problem is the more you feed it the bigger it gets and then you end up with quotes from pseudoscientists and circular arguments.0 -
reasons that prove Sky are doping
My top 3 reasons to be highly suspicious would be:
1. Froome going from pack fodder to grand tour potential overnight
2. The power outputs
3. The smokescreen stories that don't add up0 -
reasons that prove Sky are doping
My top 3 reasons to be highly suspicious would be:
1. Froome going from pack fodder to grand tour potential overnight
2. The power outputs
3. The smokescreen stories that don't add up
You mean the power outputs from the recent hack that don't look suspicious?0 -
Points 1 & 2 have been so so utterly refuted that I cannot believe that you have ever watched a bike race or read a cycling article...ever
point 3 however, can you be more specific? By which I mean, can you be more specific about point 3We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
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.
I would agree with this. The sudden freefall of Astana in general and Nibali in particular is more interesting than Sky's performance in this year's Tour.0 -
reasons that prove Sky are doping
My top 3 reasons to be highly suspicious would be:
1. Froome going from pack fodder to grand tour potential overnight
2. The power outputs
3. The smokescreen stories that don't add up
You mean the power outputs from the recent hack that don't look suspicious?
They don't? Maybe if Froome was a once in a generation talent they wouldn't be, but it's quite obvious he is far from that.0 -
Points 1 & 2 have been so so utterly refuted that I cannot believe that you have ever watched a bike race or read a cycling article...ever
point 3 however, can you be more specific? By which I mean, can you be more specific about point 3
I think he's talking about the broken leg that miraculously healed in time for the Vuelta and the dislocated shoulder that miraculously healed by the next day for bouncing out of the saddle duty.0 -
Quite obvious how? The fact that he is outputting those numbers is a pretty big tick in the box IN FAVOUR of him being a once in a generation talent....
Tip - try saying what you mean.
Or alternatively it's a pretty big tick in the box that he is doing the same thing that everyone else who produced that kind of power on Ventoux did. It all depends on how big you want to dream.
If Froome was always this much of a talent, then he wouldn't have spent the majority of his career carrying bottles.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.
For me there are several reasons:
1. I think the incentive to dope isn't there for sky.
Thier reason for existing is publically stated to be to win races clean. 100's of people are tied up in this "dream". So if they are doping to win they are achieving nothing (and no they are achieving nothing, so why would they)
2. The reasons not to dope are bigger than the reasons to dope.
Doping might increase your chances of winning races and making some dosh. BUT given he close links between Sky & British cycling the incentives to be clean far outweigh the ones to cheat. A major doping scandal within Sky would not only mean 100's of people losing their jobs, and potentially having past earnings clawed back. It would destroy the credibility or British Cycling. BC are one of the figureheads for the Olympics and for sports funding from the lottery. I suspect that if sky fell, BC would go with it, and the knock on effects to the whole funding of Team GB would be devastated.
tl;dr they can't afford to dope
3. Testing
I know there are still flaws in testing, but it is much better than it was, so the risks of getting caught are higher. This means that 1. & 2. above would weigh much more heavily on the mind of anyone tempted to dope.
4. David Walsh
DW spent so much of his time and energy on the LA stuff I think any thought that he might condone doping anywhere is ridiculous (yes I know he tended to ignore the Irish riders). Having read (twice) his book 'inside team sky' he is pretty convincing that he couldn't see any evidence that made him suspect doping (after spending a year with the team if you haven't read it)
5. Budget
Why would anyone spend so much money on the non doping performance enhancement typified by marginal gains if everyone is getting great out of a syringe?
6, Wiggins
While not being the worlds biggest Wiggo fan I do completely buy his assertion that he couldn't dope because of the personal impact of being caught from his friends and relations
7. Lack of evidence
The Sky are doping meme has been doing the rounds for years. The scrutiny the team are under is immense and not a single thread of evidence (outside the twittersphere) have been uncovered. The balance of probability is that if they were doping something would have come to light by now.
8. I want to just enjoy cycling
Not just sky, but everyone. After the nightmare years of the past i want to just sit back and watch a race without doubting what I am seeing. So for me it will stay innocent until proven guilty.
I believe Froome is clean for all of the reasons above
I also personally think post 25 yo people should be able to take drugs if they see fit
The real problem is LA was so DISGUSTING in his attempts to hide his doping, drag his cancer into it to prove he wouldn't and destroy everyone who accused him that it is hard to believe in clean teams again
And this is the real legacy he leftRaleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Quite obvious how? The fact that he is outputting those numbers is a pretty big tick in the box IN FAVOUR of him being a once in a generation talent....
Tip - try saying what you mean.
Or alternatively it's a pretty big tick in the box that he is doing the same thing that everyone else who produced that kind of power on Ventoux did. It all depends on how big you want to dream.
If Froome was always this much of a talent, then he wouldn't have spent the majority of his career carrying bottles.
Only if you completely ignore the tropical disease.
And he hasn't spent the majority of his career carrying bottles, he's been a grand tour contender for 4 years, of an 8 year career...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I am loving this, please keep going - it's making great a distraction of running global audios. After you've finished, can I be authorised to write it up as a sitcom for BBC3?0
-
Quite obvious how? The fact that he is outputting those numbers is a pretty big tick in the box IN FAVOUR of him being a once in a generation talent....
Tip - try saying what you mean.
Or alternatively it's a pretty big tick in the box that he is doing the same thing that everyone else who produced that kind of power on Ventoux did. It all depends on how big you want to dream.
If Froome was always this much of a talent, then he wouldn't have spent the majority of his career carrying bottles.
Only if you completely ignore the tropical disease.
And he hasn't spent the majority of his career carrying bottles, he's been a grand tour contender for 4 years, of an 8 year career...
Agreed.
The only extraordinary aspect of yesterdays stage was how poorly the other contenders performed, not the performance of Froome. Other riders have commented that they could not hit there usual power figures on the final climb, for whatever reason, putting the result in context. Obviously, If you are a member of the clinic, this would mean that Sky put performance hindering drugs in all the other teams bidons.0
