Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
Anyone with any sense is a little bit suspect of every cyclist, every athlete, but Froome and SKY dont stand out.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?0 -
inseine wrote:
Anyone with any sense is a little bit suspect of every cyclist, every athlete, but Froome and SKY dont stand out.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
That, wot he said.0 -
The fact is that after 4 years of absolutely obsessive focus on Sky in general and Froome in particular by all the "rational and unbiased" internet "experts", you still routinely see people pointing back to 2011 to justify their suspicions. The reason is of course that Froome's "transformation" is still the best piece of "evidence" they actually have - they literally have nothing else to suggest anything dodgy is going on. I think that says it all.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
As others have said, I don't deny there's a chance Sky (or Froome alone) might be doping. I just think it's massively unlikely and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find it much more plausible that they're clean than that they've managed to flawlessly conceal an extensive doping program under the noses of everyone for several years.0 -
Once I had convinced myself that in 2015 Sky had falsified Froomes's illness and vulnerability towards the end of that year's Tour, I realised that their eviltude and deviousity knew no bounds. That they could stage-manage it so effectively to within a minute or 2 - along with some other events in my life I'd rather not go into - is all the evidence I need that they're untrustworthy.0
-
Yeah basically that. He and Sky might be doping, but there's no real evidence (nothing at all compared to the mass that surrounded Lance anyway...), so they can have the benefit of my doubt for the time being.inseine wrote:
Anyone with any sense is a little bit suspect of every cyclist, every athlete, but Froome and SKY dont stand out.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?0 -
I think it's telling that this thread has resurfaced after a year, and also that there's a number of 'new' names stoking the fires.
Not wanting to come over all Frenchie, but there's only a few people I listen to on here, and they all have 4 figure post counts.0 -
adr82 wrote:
The fact is that after 4 years of absolutely obsessive focus on Sky in general and Froome in particular by all the "rational and unbiased" internet "experts", you still routinely see people pointing back to 2011 to justify their suspicions. The reason is of course that Froome's "transformation" is still the best piece of "evidence" they actually have - they literally have nothing else to suggest anything dodgy is going on. I think that says it all.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
As others have said, I don't deny there's a chance Sky (or Froome alone) might be doping. I just think it's massively unlikely and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find it much more plausible that they're clean than that they've managed to flawlessly conceal an extensive doping program under the noses of everyone for several years.
So how did you feel about Armstrong? Did you give him the same benefit of the doubt? While it's plausible that Sky is clean it's also plausible that they have managed to conceal doping a la Lance. There's no real reason NOT to dope. There's no jail time. Only banning for short periods. Add in the possibility of big money and why wouldn't you give it a try? I seriously doubt any pro athlete has learned from mistakes of the past(no one does), except to learn ideas of how not to get caught, and we all know that rarely works.0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Whilst competing against other blood dopers. Who's getting away with that then?
Horner, Nibali, Contador, Aru, Andy Schleck, Valverde, amongst many others. Unless you think all of the riders I mentioned aren't blood dopers?0 -
argyllflyer wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Froomedog:
2010 Giro D'Italia - disqualified for holding onto a police motorbike after getting dropped from the gripper to, 5th in Commonwealth Games TT.
2012: 2nd T de F.
Wow. Marginal gains, eh ...... Must get me one of those Pinnarello bikes .......
He worked on how not to empty the tank at the wrong moment. That will be a gain, marginal or otherwise. His detractors seldom take into consideration that he started riding competitively as a road cyclist years later than the guys he now races against and that meant learning racecraft while losing races to them. No Juniors or U23s to hide his competitive naivety.
Just two 'of age' comparisons:
Froome joined Barloworld aged 22 with limited experience of racing prior to that and nothing of riding on European roads and in a large bunch. Cav was onto his 2nd year racing at the top level by then having raced at Continental level for two years prior to that and raced for years before that. Although late to the sport, van Avermaet raced competitively from aged 19 then at 20 had a year at Continental and at 21 a year Pro Tour going into the 2008 season.
Froome emptied the tank at the wrong moment prior to his metamorphosis because he knew that he wasn't able to go with best climbers when the pace got cranked up on final climb of a mountain stage. Hence the occasional ill-timed attack. For Froome to claim that he didn't understand the importance of conserving energy or 'tactics' is laughable.0 -
Yes Dennis I believed in Armstrong (they were simpler times!) and in prepared to give SKY a chance. I don't think you can enjoy watching pro sport if you believe they are cheating. Switch off! That's a reasonable responce but if you're going to watch you've got to be prepared to believe (with a little bit of suspicion).0
-
adr82 wrote:
The fact is that after 4 years of absolutely obsessive focus on Sky in general and Froome in particular by all the "rational and unbiased" internet "experts", you still routinely see people pointing back to 2011 to justify their suspicions. The reason is of course that Froome's "transformation" is still the best piece of "evidence" they actually have - they literally have nothing else to suggest anything dodgy is going on. I think that says it all.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
As others have said, I don't deny there's a chance Sky (or Froome alone) might be doping. I just think it's massively unlikely and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find it much more plausible that they're clean than that they've managed to flawlessly conceal an extensive doping program under the noses of everyone for several years.
The transformation is clearly a giant red flag. Other red flags:
W/kg estimates only matched or bettered by known or extremely likely dopers (Froome);
Extreme weight loss achieved whilst displaying significantly increased power output (Froome and Wiggins);
Hiring a known doping doctor who was subsequently banned for life;
Results. Consistently beating known and likely dopers, even dominating them at times. Extremely unlikely for a clean rider (Froome and Wiggins);
Express TUE (prednisone), tramadol, rumours of out of competition cortisone abuse. All legal, yet arguably unethical. Suggests that Sky will do what they believe is necessary in order to win;
Missed OOC test (Froome);
Mountain train operating at a very high threshold (2012, 2015 and 2016). Reminiscent of other doped teams in the past (Banesto, US Postal, Liquigas, etc);
Hiring of very suspicious riders (Rogers, Landa and Tiernan-Locke). Once again, suggests that winning is the only thing that matters to Brailsford;
Lack of genuine transparency - Froome hasn't published any of his biological passport data or even allowed an independent expert to review it. No pre-transformation data files published (Froome). 2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
If you look at all of above in the context of professional cycling, a clear picture emerges.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Whilst competing against other blood dopers. Who's getting away with that then?
Horner, Nibali, Contador, Aru, Andy Schleck, Valverde, amongst many others. Unless you think all of the riders I mentioned aren't blood dopers?
Only one of them has been convicted of blood doping. We can suspect the others, but you have no proof that they are. Unless of course you do have proof?0 -
CuthbertC wrote:adr82 wrote:
The fact is that after 4 years of absolutely obsessive focus on Sky in general and Froome in particular by all the "rational and unbiased" internet "experts", you still routinely see people pointing back to 2011 to justify their suspicions. The reason is of course that Froome's "transformation" is still the best piece of "evidence" they actually have - they literally have nothing else to suggest anything dodgy is going on. I think that says it all.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
As others have said, I don't deny there's a chance Sky (or Froome alone) might be doping. I just think it's massively unlikely and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find it much more plausible that they're clean than that they've managed to flawlessly conceal an extensive doping program under the noses of everyone for several years.
The transformation is clearly a giant red flag. Other red flags:
W/kg estimates only matched or bettered by known or extremely likely dopers (Froome);
Extreme weight loss achieved whilst displaying significantly increased power output (Froome and Wiggins);
Hiring a known doping doctor who was subsequently banned for life;
Results. Consistently beating known and likely dopers, even dominating them at times. Extremely unlikely for a clean rider (Froome and Wiggins);
Express TUE (prednisone), tramadol, rumours of out of competition cortisone abuse. All legal, yet arguably unethical. Suggests that Sky will do what they believe is necessary in order to win;
Missed OOC test (Froome);
Mountain train operating at a very high threshold (2012, 2015 and 2016). Reminiscent of other doped teams in the past (Banesto, US Postal, Liquigas, etc);
Hiring of very suspicious riders (Rogers, Landa and Tiernan-Locke). Once again, suggests that winning is the only thing that matters to Brailsford;
Lack of genuine transparency - Froome hasn't published any of his biological passport data or even allowed an independent expert to review it. No pre-transformation data files published (Froome). 2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
If you look at all of above in the context of professional cycling, a clear picture emerges.
Burn the witch?
Interested as to why you care so much? Are or were you an promising rider who couldn't keep up with doped opposition?0 -
things are slow in the asylum, same old jokes that make 10k+ threads, so some lunatics seek some external fun huh?0
-
So far there is no smoking gun with Froome so I will believe he is clean. The fact is riders now have off days, which we never saw in the drug fueled era, so I view that as a sign riders are clean now.0
-
Here you go. I guess you blocked it from you mind as it's inconvenient to your dogma.CuthbertC wrote:2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
Twitter: @RichN950 -
There really is little point in conversing with these morons. No matter that there is nothing on Brailsford or Froome, they must be dopers.
Just leave them to it, same old same old. It's tedious. Get a life.0 -
Amazing (not is suspicious way!) cardio results for Froome. Min 32 max 161.
161 (if I understood it correctly ) seems really low.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Froomedog:
2010 Giro D'Italia - disqualified for holding onto a police motorbike after getting dropped from the gripper.
This type of selective fact quoting borders on the malicious. Froome had knee trouble, was indeed off the back and decided to quit. The team vehicle was waiting at the top of the hill, so he took the police motorbike tow (a cunningly low profile move :roll: ) to get to the top. The UCI saw this and imposed the letter of the law and disqualified a rider who had clearly signalled that he was retiring.
The quoted "evidence" smacks of despair at the lack of anything more substantial.0 -
I''m surprised he's that heavy (ok I know it's not exactly obese) I guess he will be lighter now at least at race weight. I'm also surprised he's not taller than that - a touch over 6'1 - for some reason I thought he was a couple of inches taller.
Heart rate is interesting but I'm assuming he just pumps a lot of blood with one stroke - my max is similar though was higher at his age and I can't get my resting heart rate below mid-high 40s these days.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:I''m surprised he's that heavy (ok I know it's not exactly obese) I guess he will be lighter now at least at race weight. I'm also surprised he's not taller than that - a touch over 6'1 - for some reason I thought he was a couple of inches taller.
Heart rate is interesting but I'm assuming he just pumps a lot of blood with one stroke - my max is similar though was higher at his age and I can't get my resting heart rate below mid-high 40s these days.
His weight is typically below 70kg now, 66-69.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Here you go. I guess you blocked it from you mind as it's inconvenient to your dogma.CuthbertC wrote:2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
There is additional data which hasn't been released:With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p19509490 -
No. What that says is Swart didn't include the additional data (of which I have shown you picture) in his report as he and GSK hadn't collected that. The data was, however, made public by other parties and used in the GQ article.CuthbertC wrote:
There is additional data which hasn't been released:With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1950949Twitter: @RichN950 -
CuthbertC wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Here you go. I guess you blocked it from you mind as it's inconvenient to your dogma.CuthbertC wrote:2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
There is additional data which hasn't been released:With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1950949
Swart comes across pretty well in that thread and I don't see how you can use what he's said there to support your assertion that Froome is doping. He's pretty clear that it doesn't prove that one way or the other...0 -
andyp wrote:CuthbertC wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:Whilst competing against other blood dopers. Who's getting away with that then?
Horner, Nibali, Contador, Aru, Andy Schleck, Valverde, amongst many others. Unless you think all of the riders I mentioned aren't blood dopers?
Only one of them has been convicted of blood doping. We can suspect the others, but you have no proof that they are. Unless of course you do have proof?
Proof? Let's look at Contador for example. All time VAM record holder after doing 6.73w/kg on Verbier. Liberty Seguros, Discovery (blood doping program at 2007 Tour according to Leipheimer), Astana and Saxo Bank under Riis. Some very dirty teams there. 7 (?) Grand Tour wins. Clenbuterol positive. Pepe Marti, Landis' drug dealer. and Contador's former trainer. I could go on. It's extremely likely that Contador has blood doped (EPO and/or transfusions) based on these simple facts alone. I don't need proof to form a reasonable opinion.
Do you believe (as opposed to know) Contador is a blood doper? Yes or no please.
By the way, some other convicted dopers Wiggins and Froome have beaten over the years: Menchov, Basso and Santombrogio.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No. What that says is Swart didn't include the additional data (of which I have shown you picture) in his report as he and GSK hadn't collected that. The data was, however, made public by other parties and used in the GQ article.CuthbertC wrote:
There is additional data which hasn't been released:With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1950949
Which parties are your referring to? Where has it been made public?0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:CuthbertC wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Here you go. I guess you blocked it from you mind as it's inconvenient to your dogma.CuthbertC wrote:2007 data hasn't been published and as far as I know, no one intends to publish it. These are all simple things that Froome could have done to allay doubts about the credibility of his performances. The fact that he doesn't so in nearly five years suggests that he has something to hide.
There is additional data which hasn't been released:With respect to the inclusion of additional data: We did debate this extensively and ultimately decided that we did not want to publish any data that was not collected directly by us. Although there is some discussion in the manuscript around other data, the data analysed is all from the GSK lab.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1950949
Swart comes across pretty well in that thread and I don't see how you can use what he's said there to support your assertion that Froome is doping. He's pretty clear that it doesn't prove that one way or the other...
I'm not, I was just responding to RichN95.0 -
That's a nice list. However what you seem to have missed is that "red flags" are not evidence. Again, if Sky are so obviously doping and have been at it for years when so many "rational and unbiased" (CuthbertC wrote:adr82 wrote:
The fact is that after 4 years of absolutely obsessive focus on Sky in general and Froome in particular by all the "rational and unbiased" internet "experts", you still routinely see people pointing back to 2011 to justify their suspicions. The reason is of course that Froome's "transformation" is still the best piece of "evidence" they actually have - they literally have nothing else to suggest anything dodgy is going on. I think that says it all.Matthewfalle wrote:But on a serious note - no one suspects anything even a little bit suss?
As others have said, I don't deny there's a chance Sky (or Froome alone) might be doping. I just think it's massively unlikely and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find it much more plausible that they're clean than that they've managed to flawlessly conceal an extensive doping program under the noses of everyone for several years.
The transformation is clearly a giant red flag. Other red flags:
...
) observers like yourself are so keen to expose them, why do you need to rely on suspicion and insinuation?
I mean, all it would take is one disgruntled (ex-)employee at Sky to blow the lid off! A lot of them must be involved if you believe Brailsford is the mastermind here rather than Froome doing it on his own. So why has nobody come forward, even riders who have left Sky and now have to compete against them? How is Brailsford keeping everyone and everything so quiet? Governments around the world must be beating a path to this door to learn how to prevent inconvenient leaks.
Exposing Sky would probably be a bigger story than this whole Russian thing, and I'm sure any whistleblower could name their price for some genuine inside information. Yet here we are 4 years and 3 Tours later there's still nothing. That's either because there's nothing to expose or because Sky have successfully kept it all quiet, and as I said before I know which possibility I find most likely.
Whenever Froome has released any data, all it predictably resulted in is people saying "Oh well, this proves nothing, we want MORE!". You demonstrated this attitude perfectly in your response to Rich about the 2007 data. If Froome's activities were livestreamed 24 hours a day all bloody year you'd still be telling us he was secretly doping somehow. Show me some evidence or STFU.0
