Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
CuthbertC wrote: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?
Is reading not your strong suite?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
adr82 wrote:
That's a nice list. However what you seem to have missed is that "red flags" are not evidence.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:
...
What can I say? You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.0 -
Incidentally, Cuthbert, 34 posts (and counting) and ALL on doping.
Here on BR Pro-Race we like to discuss actual cycling from time to time. You know, professional bike riders competing in races, transferring team, winning things, losing things, tactics, selections, strategy, that sort of stuff.
If you need some help with understanding cycling, so you can take part in other discussions, then this is the best place to start:
viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12862634Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
CuthbertC wrote:adr82 wrote:
That's a nice list. However what you seem to have missed is that "red flags" are not evidence.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:
...
What can I say? You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.
Crawl back under your stone.0 -
The World Cycling Centre. Originally GQ magazine.CuthbertC wrote: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?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
The World Cycling Centre. Originally GQ magazine.CuthbertC wrote: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?
Neither the World Cycling Centre or GQ magazine has published all of raw data. See:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... #p1950992; and
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p19511450 -
Froome doesn't owe anyone sh1t. Publishing figures, bio-passport etc doesn't do anything to persuade the truly afflicted. They've made their minds up and nothing will change that.
I wouldn't even bother trying. The only thing that interests some people is the intrigue and scandal, as evidenced by the fact that all of our friend's posts are accusatory about doping and Sky. He's not really interested in the sport.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Leave it, Sausage on a Fork, he's not worth it.0
-
Yawn. OP on this thread 'Skylimit' came and went in a day last July yet the thread lives on. Job done there Skylimit or whatever you call yourself now.0
-
adr82 wrote: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.
I only follow this in passing, but isn't the current angle that whistleblowers are terrified for their lives and so it's little wonder that no one has come forward on Sky. There is a crack team of agents ready to knock off anyone that brings forward proper evidence (and don't forget the culture of extreme bullying at Sky/BC etc. etc.). I thought I saw reams on this by a well known "sports scientist" recently...
:roll:0 -
dish_dash wrote:adr82 wrote: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.
I only follow this in passing, but isn't the current angle that whistleblowers are terrified for their lives and so it's little wonder that no one has come forward on Sky. There is a crack team of agents ready to knock off anyone that brings forward proper evidence (and don't forget the culture of extreme bullying at Sky/BC etc. etc.). I thought I saw reams on this by a well known "sports scientist" recently...
:roll:
That'll be the 'sports scientist' who continually casts aspersions without foundation, but gets upset if you throw some back at him with foundation.0 -
adr82 wrote:
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.
I think keeping things quiet would be relatively straight-forward, but it would depend on what is being done. If you need an agent to sneak into a controlled lab and swap samples, then it would presumably be harder than if one doctor was supplying a dodgy injection / steak. Either way, if it was happening and Brailsford was involved, there would probably only be one person who knows.
Everyone knew about Armstrong because his ego meant he needed to brag.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:I think keeping things quiet would be relatively straight-forward, but it would depend on what is being done. If you need an agent to sneak into a controlled lab and swap samples, then it would presumably be harder than if one doctor was supplying a dodgy injection / steak. Either way, if it was happening and Brailsford was involved, there would probably only be one person who knows.
Everyone knew about Armstrong because his ego meant he needed to brag.
Everyone should have known about Armstrong because his performances were other-worldly. A lot of these "journalist" who are crying foul on Froome were the ones that refused to see the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Armstrong because they were too busy sucking his boabby.0 -
You think ? Relatively straight forward ?
So you'd need Brailsford to keep quiet. And then Wiggins, Froome, all of the key Tour Riders - there's no point in boosting one star rider if your team is weak. So that's umpteen people. And the doctors. And the masseurs who would see injection marks. And the finance guy who is paying for the drugs - they don't come cheap. And the partners - didn't Disco have drugs in their fridges back home ?
And all of the Olympic teams too - there's no way Brailsford would win cleanly there and only after all of that clean racing decide to dope his pro riders.
You'd be talking of a conspiracy on a massive scale going back years.
To me sky having organised doping seems about as likely as 9/11 being a false flag operation. (and you can see my 6 hour youtube prog on this which definitely proves as much on.....)0 -
0
-
I was going to contribute to this thread with something relatively well thought out, but after reading the last 5 or so pages I can see it would be absolutely pointless me doing so and a waste of mine and everybody else's time to add to this discussion.
The only way to make this thread useful is to turn it into a poll with two options. At least then the majority could make better use of our block lists and enjoy reading Pro Race a little more...0 -
CuthbertC wrote:Hiring of very suspicious riders (Rogers, Landa and Tiernan-Locke). Once again, suggests that winning is the only thing that matters to Brailsford;
I'm curious (not really) what you put JTL's awful performance at Sky down to? Similarly, why so far, has Landa been half the rider he was last year? Why did Mick Rogers start winning again after he left Sky?
Why is Kwiatkowski a shadow of his former self? EBH? Why did Lofkvist suddenly become an also-ran at Sky? Why did Gerrans became a world-beater when he left?
Why oh why haven't they bothered to dope people to dominate the classics? The Giro? The Vuelta?0 -
Turfle wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Hiring of very suspicious riders (Rogers, Landa and Tiernan-Locke). Once again, suggests that winning is the only thing that matters to Brailsford;
I'm curious (not really) what you put JTL's awful performance at Sky down to? Similarly, why so far, has Landa been half the rider he was last year? Why did Mick Rogers start winning again after he left Sky?
Why is Kwiatkowski a shadow of his former self? EBH? Why did Lofkvist suddenly become an also-ran at Sky? Why did Gerrans became a world-beater when he left?
Why oh why haven't they bothered to dope people to dominate the classics? The Giro? The Vuelta?
Tiernan-Locke: obviously wasn't able to use the same doping program due to the passport. Very likely that he was never part of the inner circle at Sky (Tour A-team), therefore no doping guidance. Perhaps Brailsford mistakenly thought he could take care of his own program?
Landa: inaccurate to say he's been half the rider. Won Trentino, a stage of Pais Vasco, good time trial at the Giro and in a decent position on GC before the hardest mountain stages, where he would have intended to attack. Possibly a bad blood bag on the rest day, or maybe just unfortunate. I agree that he was far weaker at the Tour compared to last year's Giro. Limited preparation probably played a part, but once again I think Landa isn't part of the inner circle (yet). Therefore, no team doping support during the Tour.
Rogers: I don't understand how Rogers' results post-Sky are relevant to whether he was doping at Sky.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the riders as I didn't bring them up.
As for the other races, Sky is extremely Tour oriented. Hence the 4 out 6 since 2011, with Wiggins and Froome crashing out of the other two. Therefore I'd say the doping is similarly focused on a core group who ride the Tour and regularly train on Tenerife. Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers are the most obvious. Thomas and Poels are also very likley. Targeting the Giro, Vuelta and some of the classics in the manner they do the Tour would involve something resembling a team-wide doping program, which I don't believe has ever existed at Sky. A far wider doping program would naturally be far riskier in that more people would have knowledge of the program. Of course there are also probably many past and present Sky riders who are clean/ish and wouldn't want to take part in a doping program.0 -
Jesus Christ you are mentally deranged0
-
Every year without fail around the time of the tour, but only for a very limited time frame...PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
So what - 7 years they've been going ? So their tour squad will have changed a fair bit. Thats a lot of 'core riders'. CBA looking them up.
Oh but hang on - you have to be part of the inner core to get access to the doping. So this can easily explain away riders poor performances.
If you're going to dope - then surely you'd dope all of your tour team. If a rider didn't need dope to do his job then he should be team leader - he'd be that strong.
And why would brailsford risk his reputation built up over years to throw it away doping a pro team ?
I don't see how you could have a clean GB team and dirty Sky.
Either they're both clean or its the biggest cover up since OJ Simpson landed on Mars....0 -
This is why I prefer pictures of muppets.Correlation is not causation.0
-
coriordan wrote:Jesus Christ you are mentally deranged
Amazing isn't it. Some people don't realise just how ridiculous they sound.
I could perhaps understand if Sky'd had 10 or so riders busted like Astana and Katusha have since Sky formed. But no, not a sausage. Nor is there a hint of Brailsford being linked to any doping in nigh-on 15 years of success in cycling.
It's futile, people like Cuthbert think they know everything but just sound like muppets.0 -
Very likely. Maybe. Perhaps. Probably. You think. You believe.CuthbertC wrote:Tiernan-Locke: obviously wasn't able to use the same doping program due to the passport. Very likely that he was never part of the inner circle at Sky (Tour A-team), therefore no doping guidance. Perhaps Brailsford mistakenly thought he could take care of his own program?
Landa: inaccurate to say he's been half the rider. Won Trentino, a stage of Pais Vasco, good time trial at the Giro and in a decent position on GC before the hardest mountain stages, where he would have intended to attack. Possibly a bad blood bag on the rest day, or maybe just unfortunate. I agree that he was far weaker at the Tour compared to last year's Giro. Limited preparation probably played a part, but once again I think Landa isn't part of the inner circle (yet). Therefore, no team doping support during the Tour.
Rogers: I don't understand how Rogers' results post-Sky are relevant to whether he was doping at Sky.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the riders as I didn't bring them up.
As for the other races, Sky is extremely Tour oriented. Hence the 4 out 6 since 2011, with Wiggins and Froome crashing out of the other two. Therefore I'd say the doping is similarly focused on a core group who ride the Tour and regularly train on Tenerife. Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers are the most obvious. Thomas and Poels are also very likley. Targeting the Giro, Vuelta and some of the classics in the manner they do the Tour would involve something resembling a team-wide doping program, which I don't believe has ever existed at Sky. A far wider doping program would naturally be far riskier in that more people would have knowledge of the program. Of course there are also probably many past and present Sky riders who are clean/ish and wouldn't want to take part in a doping program.
It couldn't be any more obvious you're just making things up to try and force reality to conform to your delusions. I'll ask again: please provide some factual evidence to back up this rambling mess.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:Turfle wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Hiring of very suspicious riders (Rogers, Landa and Tiernan-Locke). Once again, suggests that winning is the only thing that matters to Brailsford;
I'm curious (not really) what you put JTL's awful performance at Sky down to? Similarly, why so far, has Landa been half the rider he was last year? Why did Mick Rogers start winning again after he left Sky?
Why is Kwiatkowski a shadow of his former self? EBH? Why did Lofkvist suddenly become an also-ran at Sky? Why did Gerrans became a world-beater when he left?
Why oh why haven't they bothered to dope people to dominate the classics? The Giro? The Vuelta?
Tiernan-Locke: obviously wasn't able to use the same doping program due to the passport. Very likely that he was never part of the inner circle at Sky (Tour A-team), therefore no doping guidance. Perhaps Brailsford mistakenly thought he could take care of his own program?
Landa: inaccurate to say he's been half the rider. Won Trentino, a stage of Pais Vasco, good time trial at the Giro and in a decent position on GC before the hardest mountain stages, where he would have intended to attack. Possibly a bad blood bag on the rest day, or maybe just unfortunate. I agree that he was far weaker at the Tour compared to last year's Giro. Limited preparation probably played a part, but once again I think Landa isn't part of the inner circle (yet). Therefore, no team doping support during the Tour.
Rogers: I don't understand how Rogers' results post-Sky are relevant to whether he was doping at Sky.
I'm not going to go into the rest of the riders as I didn't bring them up.
As for the other races, Sky is extremely Tour oriented. Hence the 4 out 6 since 2011, with Wiggins and Froome crashing out of the other two. Therefore I'd say the doping is similarly focused on a core group who ride the Tour and regularly train on Tenerife. Wiggins, Froome, Porte and Rogers are the most obvious. Thomas and Poels are also very likley. Targeting the Giro, Vuelta and some of the classics in the manner they do the Tour would involve something resembling a team-wide doping program, which I don't believe has ever existed at Sky. A far wider doping program would naturally be far riskier in that more people would have knowledge of the program. Of course there are also probably many past and present Sky riders who are clean/ish and wouldn't want to take part in a doping program.
So, JTL, Sky sign him (knowing full well he was a doper, according to you), and then don't bother to dope him. Sounds reasonable.
Landa was the strongest climber in the Giro last year. This year he was barely able to stay with the 30 best climbers in the Tour on most stages. He's been fine. He hasn't been close to 2015 Landa. Was he doping this year?
Rogers. You say he was part of the inner-circle of doping at Sky, why then would they risk letting him leave after riding only one TdF for them?
No, you didn't mention those riders, but I asked about them, and I'd like to hear reasons why EBH, Gerrans, Lofkvist, Kwiatkowski were not close to the same riders at Sky. The first 3 were all part of TdF squads with Wiggins and/or Froome. Why were they not doped? Why were they shadows of the riders they were elsewhere?0 -
(sorry)0
