Are sky clean or not?
Comments
-
-
^Excellent!Correlation is not causation.0
-
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
0 -
Is that Etixx trying to work out who they're riding for?It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Salsiccia1 wrote:Is that Etixx trying to work out who they're riding for?
No, they're pulling on the front of a group 2 minutes behind.0 -
-
FocusZing wrote:
Ah there's Cav using Kittel as a lead out man again.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Joelsim wrote:
Is that Quintana hitching a ride on Miss Piggy's Mavic Neutral service bike?Correlation is not causation.0 -
Fenix wrote: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....
Brailsford is very driven. As I said earlier, he has a win at all costs attitude. Results are the only thing that matter to him. "Failing' (not winning the Tour) with Sky would have been very embarrassing for him. Doping is merely an essential requirement to win the Tour.
There's no comparison between tracking cycling and elite road cycling, particularly in Europe. Firstly, the talent pool in road cycling is far greater than in track cycling (even that's an understatement). There's also obviously no comparison between the money on offer in road cycling compared to the track. Far greater financial incentive to dope in road cycling. I'd say there is also a far more ingrained culture of sophisticated doping in road cycling. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a clean GB team, yet at the same be be very skeptical of Sky.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:Brailsford is very driven. As I said earlier, he has a win at all costs attitude. Results are the only thing that matter to him. "Failing' (not winning the Tour) with Sky would have been very embarrassing for him. Doping is merely an essential requirement to win the Tour.
If it's essential, why do Sky get all the heat, an no-one else? Nibali won in it in 2014, Quintana almost toppled Froome in the last week in 2015. Why aren't there 'Are Astana clean or not' or 'Are Movistar clean or not' threads? If the answer to that is 'we know they're not clean', why does it matter more if Sky aren't that requires the 'question' to be continually asked?CuthbertC wrote:There's no comparison between tracking cycling and elite road cycling, particularly in Europe. Firstly, the talent pool in road cycling is far greater than in track cycling (even that's an understatement). There's also obviously no comparison between the money on offer in road cycling compared to the track. Far greater financial incentive to dope in road cycling. I'd say there is also a far more ingrained culture of sophisticated doping in road cycling. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a clean GB team, yet at the same be very skeptical of Sky.
I'd say that fact means it's perfectly understandable for there to be some skepticism, but it's people's cast-iron certainty of doping based on flimsy arguments and 'scientific evidence' from charlatans that gets wearing.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Brailsford is very driven. As I said earlier, he has a win at all costs attitude. Results are the only thing that matter to him. "Failing' (not winning the Tour) with Sky would have been very embarrassing for him. Doping is merely an essential requirement to win the Tour.
If it's essential, why do Sky get all the heat, an no-one else? Nibali won in it in 2014, Quintana almost toppled Froome in the last week in 2015. Why aren't there 'Are Astana clean or not' or 'Are Movistar clean or not' threads? If the answer to that is 'we know they're not clean', why does it matter more if Sky aren't that requires the 'question' to be continually asked?CuthbertC wrote:There's no comparison between tracking cycling and elite road cycling, particularly in Europe. Firstly, the talent pool in road cycling is far greater than in track cycling (even that's an understatement). There's also obviously no comparison between the money on offer in road cycling compared to the track. Far greater financial incentive to dope in road cycling. I'd say there is also a far more ingrained culture of sophisticated doping in road cycling. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a clean GB team, yet at the same be very skeptical of Sky.
I'd say that fact means it's perfectly understandable for there to be some skepticism, but it's people's cast-iron certainty of doping based on flimsy arguments and 'scientific evidence' from charlatans that gets wearing.
:?: Based on what I've read in this thread, at least 90% of the posters seem to believe that Sky/Wiggins/Froome are clean. That is why there is an ongoing discussion interspersed with cowardly insults and references to people's mental health. In my experience, there are relatively few people who actually believe that Astana/Nibali/Aru are clean, consequently resulting in less 'heat'. Sky consistently 'selling' themselves as a clean team also tends to irritate some people, although I can understand why they may feel the need to do in the wake of Armstrong being exposed and the 'new generation' mantra that has been heard over the last few years.0 -
It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights
It's time to meet the Muppets on the Muppet Show tonight
Ah. Memories.0 -
CuthbertC wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:CuthbertC wrote:Brailsford is very driven. As I said earlier, he has a win at all costs attitude. Results are the only thing that matter to him. "Failing' (not winning the Tour) with Sky would have been very embarrassing for him. Doping is merely an essential requirement to win the Tour.
If it's essential, why do Sky get all the heat, an no-one else? Nibali won in it in 2014, Quintana almost toppled Froome in the last week in 2015. Why aren't there 'Are Astana clean or not' or 'Are Movistar clean or not' threads? If the answer to that is 'we know they're not clean', why does it matter more if Sky aren't that requires the 'question' to be continually asked?CuthbertC wrote:There's no comparison between tracking cycling and elite road cycling, particularly in Europe. Firstly, the talent pool in road cycling is far greater than in track cycling (even that's an understatement). There's also obviously no comparison between the money on offer in road cycling compared to the track. Far greater financial incentive to dope in road cycling. I'd say there is also a far more ingrained culture of sophisticated doping in road cycling. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in a clean GB team, yet at the same be very skeptical of Sky.
I'd say that fact means it's perfectly understandable for there to be some skepticism, but it's people's cast-iron certainty of doping based on flimsy arguments and 'scientific evidence' from charlatans that gets wearing.
:?: Based on what I've read in this thread, at least 90% of the posters seem to believe that Sky/Wiggins/Froome are clean. That is why there is an ongoing discussion interspersed with cowardly insults and references to people's mental health. In my experience, there are relatively few people who actually believe that Astana/Nibali/Aru are clean, consequently resulting in less 'heat'. Sky consistently 'selling' themselves as a clean team also tends to irritate some people, although I can understand why they may feel the need to do in the wake of Armstrong being exposed and the 'new generation' mantra that has been heard over the last few years.
That's all reasonable enough. I believe that Sky are ostensibly clean, and that there's no 'program', although individual riders are a different thing. That being said, I also believe that Froome is clean, for the reasons mentioned previously and because the 'evidence' to the contrary is based on very little substance other than him being much stronger than the other contenders.
As for Astana, riders getting popped frequently raises a bigger red flag than anything Sky have going on, but that doesn't automatically mean Aru and Nibali are up to anything. I'd like to think they're not, and there's no evidence they are, but you'd never bet your house on any rider, including Froome, or any other pro sportsman/woman for that matter being clean. But they way the racing is, with riders paying for effort and the pace/attacks in the mountains being steady rather than explosive makes me think that cycling is a lot cleaner than it was.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
0 -
If you actually read most of the more reasoned posts on here (not the ones where people come in and write "he's definitely clean" and leave again), most people seem to be of a similar attitude, i.e., you wouldn't bet your house on Froome or any other pro cyclist on being clean but at the moment the "evidence" is almost entirely comjecture and we're more interested in the actual bike racing.CuthbertC wrote::?: Based on what I've read in this thread, at least 90% of the posters seem to believe that Sky/Wiggins/Froome are clean.
I know that nuanced views don't go down well on the clinic though so I understand the difficulty you have with that.0 -
Cuthbert: you're right, most people on here think Sky/Froome are clean. Unfortunately, nothing presented really adds up to a smoking gun and we'll all want something more concrete. There is an element of nationalism in the forming of opinions, it's a British-leaning forum, but I think most of us are objective enough to consider real evidence. However, the arguments presented are the same flimsy ones that have been discussed time and time again and don't give evidence of anything.
Edit: what Bobmcstuff said.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
One thing I wonder about is how come it's implausible that Sky are so much better than everyone else by legitimate means (even if we just narrow "better than" to the Tour ad a few one week races) while it's apparently entirely plausible that they're absolutely streets ahead of all the others when it comes to doping without getting caught. It only seems possible if you buy into the innovative cutting edge marginal gains narrative, but exclude it covering anything but doping.
Weird people.
I much prefer looking at ace pictures of muppets than reading their arguments.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.
That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).0 -
Joelsim wrote:The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.
That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).
Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights
It's time to meet the Muppets on the Muppet Show tonight
Ah. Memories.
It seems our new friend Cuthbert doesn't like the Muppets. Personally I don't trust anyone who doesn't like the Muppets. A massive red flag if ever I saw one.Correlation is not causation.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.
That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).
Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.
A huge ego fanned by the nodders who follow him.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.
That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).
Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.
And it isn't really that much of a competitive edge is it? I mean it might look that way if the only race you ever watch is the Tour but watch other GTs, watch the Classics and then insist Sky have a competitive edge...
HA!Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Joelsim wrote:The reason lots of people think Sky are doping is because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. The best anyone can come up with is that Leinders worked there and he was subsequently banned for life. (Obviously there's no one else still in cycling who had anything to do with doping when everyone 'had to' dope). QED.
That's infuriating for many, so they keep having to spew out the same old narrative. When I question them on Twitter there is a herd of 'disciples' throwing insults at me, led by the Archangel Tucker (the stupid *ucker).
Tucker is a nasty piece of work. Routinely throws dissenters to his disciples. Deliberately misconstrues arguments (or is monstrously stupid, and I don't think he is). And knows sweet fa about cycling. Apparently it's an "insult" to all the other teams to suggest that Sky might have a competitive edge through modernising training.
And it isn't really that much of a competitive edge is it? I mean it might look that way if the only race you ever watch is the Tour but watch other GTs, watch the Classics and then insist Sky have a competitive edge...
HA!
Not to play the Devil's advocate but sky arguably had the best Classics season of any team. Their record in the monuments this season reads 2nd, 5th, 3rd and 1st :twisted:0 -
CuthbertC wrote:
Brailsford is very driven. As I said earlier, he has a win at all costs attitude. Results are the only thing that matter to him. "Failing' (not winning the Tour) with Sky would have been very embarrassing for him.
I don't follow why this "win at all cost" thing seems to be applied to driven people? Sure pro coaches, players, and managers want to win but I'm doubting that they are such evil people. They have families, friends, etc., etc. and are not out all night in meetings with the devil. The are simply human beings, like you and I, but in a different situation. They may make mistakes, do illegal things, or be pure as the driven snow, but I'm thinking that even the bad seeds have their limits. So I don't buy the "at all costs" idea.0 -
I've only ever seen Cuthbert describe DB as being a win at all costs personality. Where does he get that? Oh it fits in with his "theory".
This is from someone who knows him-
http://www.planetx.co.uk/news/planet-x- ... r-the-chop0 -
cougie wrote:I've only ever seen Cuthbert describe DB as being a win at all costs personality. Where does he get that? Oh it fits in with his "theory".
This is from someone who knows him-
http://www.planetx.co.uk/news/planet-x- ... r-the-chop
Well...Those were the days of a business in its infancy with no plan, structure, and where days and evenings were spent talking of the great Tour exploits and battles of Lemond, Fignon, Delgado and the cycling icons of the 80s.
Not much has changed at Planet X over the years then... just they aren't in their infancy anymore..Follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/scalesjason - All posts are strictly my personal view.0 -
The way Cuthbert is putting it you'd expect them to be planning from their hollowed out volcano...0
