collapse


just some guy

  • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
  • Hall of Fame'r
  • Country: 00
  • Posts: 31566
  • Liked: 11185
  • Awards: 2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
Re: Sky
« Reply #540 on: February 03, 2013, 07:04 »
Walsh has been give access at any time as long as he wants speak to whom ever he wants.

Just spent 5 days with sky
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #541 on: February 03, 2013, 08:00 »
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #542 on: February 03, 2013, 08:57 »
    Cadel Evans style awkwardness.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31566
    • Liked: 11185
    • Awards: 2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    ram

    Re: Sky
    « Reply #544 on: February 03, 2013, 14:23 »
    Fair play. They seem to be consciously making an effort to clear the smog. Inviting not only Walsh but other sportsmen to their training camp.

    Btw, Raleigh are also in Mallorca.
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #545 on: February 03, 2013, 14:33 »
    Fair play. They seem to be consciously making an effort to clear the smog. Inviting not only Walsh but other sportsmen to their training camp.

    Btw, Raleigh are also in Mallorca.
    They will be called dopers now  :rolleye
  • ReplyReply

  • Kvinto

    • Neo Pro
    • Country: ua
    • Posts: 223
    • Liked: 141
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #546 on: February 03, 2013, 14:37 »


    That's my favourite part:

    “Over the last three years we really recognized the need to simplify what we’ve been doing, go back to basics, look at the areas where we get the big gains, make sure we address these areas first...” 

    I’m glad that they – in the Team Sky – are professional enough to perceive that the “big gains” are bigger than “marginal gains”, but what do these big gains mean from the point of view of sports science  :? because every time I read/listen about the term “science” next to “sports” (not to mention the “big gains”) my perverted mind recalls me one quote of late Aldo Sassi about doping in the 80th. I’m not sure I can convey it literally, but I’m going to try:

    “The ethical perception of doping at that time has not been the same as today. What is doping now was called science back then”

    Under the circumstances when so many parties in the sport emphasize on clean achievements I long to know what kind of “new science” propels these achievements nowadays and hope it will take less than 10 years to figure out...  :cheesy
  • ReplyReply
  • "Women buy stuff at sales for the same reason men climb mountains - because they're there" (from 'Under the Dome' by Stephen King)

    cj2002

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: pt
    • Posts: 2893
    • Liked: 3257
    • Honorary President
    • Awards: Best avatar 2012
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #547 on: February 04, 2013, 13:57 »
    The Return of the Kimmage

    taken from @PaulKimmage

    Quote
    The genius of Sir David Brailsford (or what you didn't read yesterday in The Sunday Times)...

    September 2009: Brailsford outlines his plans for Team Sky to win the Tour de France clean in five years. Roger Palfreeman, the BC team doc,

    is a trump card. "It's one of the key things," he tells Jeremy Whittle of The Times. "We have Roger Palfreeman doing internal testing but...

    we also work with the UCI and UK sport. We have a clear anti-doping strategy." March 2010: Palfreeman leaves BC. The media are not informed.

    June 7, 2010: Brailsford offers a journalist from The Sunday Times complete and unrestricted access to the team for the Tour de France.

    June 16 2010: The journalist spends four days with Bradley Wiggins at a Team Sky training camp in the Pyrenees.

    June 27 2010: An interview with Wiggins is published. Five days later, on the eve of the Tour in Rotterdam, Brailsford informs the journo...

    ...that complete and unrestricted access now comes with certain restrictions: No access to the team for the first week of the race...

    ...No access to Michael Barry for the duration of the race and some tap dancing on Palfreeman. Q: Do you have his number?

    A: "No, he handed his BC phone back. If I can get hold of him I'll give him your number and he can call you."

    July 3 2010: The journalist files a story about Barry, Palfreeman and Brailsford's surprise about-turn for the ST. It isn't published.

    (Sometime) 2010: The former Rabobank doctor, Geert Leinders, currently assiting an anti-doping inquiry in Belgium, joins Team Sky.

    May 2012: Leinders association with the team is questioned by fans on Twitter. July 11, 2012 - the first mention of Leinders in The Times.

    October 2012: Leinders "80-day-a year" (whatever that means) contract with Sky is not renewed.

    December 2, 2012: "CLEAN BREAKAWAY" - the first mention of Leinders in The Sunday Times.

    February 3, 2013: "NO HIDING PLACE: Battle for the credibility of cycling brings extraordinary offer from Dave Brailsford" appears in ST.

    There is no mention that this offer has been made before. Or how Brailsford, and the newspaper, conducted themselves.

    Bottom line: When they start applying the same standards to Team Sky as they did to Lance Armstrong, I'll start taking them seriously.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 14:19 by cj2002 »
    He shook his head sadly and told me that endemic drug use had compelled him to give up a promising career. "Even one small local race, prize was a salami, and I see doping!" - Tim Moore: Gironimo (Riding the Very Terrible 1914 Tour of Italy)

    ram

    Re: Sky
    « Reply #548 on: February 17, 2013, 02:32 »
    How is he or that connected to Sky?
    We could surely dig the same about anyone, clean or dirty, and they'd say similar stuff.

    USPS wore shorts.... so do sky...
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 04:17 by ram »

    L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 8066
    • Liked: 6777
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #549 on: February 17, 2013, 11:45 »
    How is he or that connected to Sky?
    We could surely dig the same about anyone, clean or dirty, and they'd say similar stuff.

    USPS wore shorts.... so do sky...

    He isn't, so I moved the post. :)
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon / Larry Sarni

    ram

    Re: Sky
    « Reply #550 on: February 18, 2013, 17:20 »
    Like Zapatero saved Contador?
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #551 on: February 18, 2013, 17:31 »
    @ Asturiano

    You're of course entitled to that opinion. But there's nothing in your piece that is a fact that indicates any Sky riders are doping. There aren't many such facts which is interesting in itself. Personally, I'd be surprised if they were all doping all the time but not surprised that some were doping some of the time.

    Whatever Sky are doing, their performance has been remarkable. A performance level that you could only really put down to doping if they have a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else has AND they have a team-wide programme.

    Or the simplest answer is that they're not doing anything the rest of the peleton isn't doing, their training is just better.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #552 on: February 18, 2013, 17:54 »
    "Doping will always be ahead of testing"... heard this once, agree with it 100%....
    just stating my opinion, not here to argue.
    There's far more to be learnt by challenging and defending assertions in a debate rather than by making a claim and walking away.

    Up to you though...
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #553 on: February 18, 2013, 19:16 »
    while there is a bit of glass houses about someone who thinks Contador is clean going after Sky, his wider point about big teams being protected at the olympics, while a slight digression from the topic, is very  valid. Anti doping at the olympics has been a joke all the way and absolutely nothing has happened since the 2000 and 2004 olympics to suggest anything has changed.


    Whatever Sky are doing, their performance has been remarkable. A performance level that you could only really put down to doping if they have a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else has AND they have a team-wide programme.


    Surprised to see this coming from you.

     If they are doping their performance level can be put down to doping REGARDLESS of what everyone else is doing.

    Maybe what you wanted to write is that their superiority over other teams could only really be put down to doping if they have a product and ability to escape detection  that no one else has.

    But the performance level is either down to doping or it is not, it doesn't matter 1 iota whether other teams have those drugs and those methods or not.

    As i said strange (unless you meant somehting else) for someone who boycotted the late 90's and 2000's because of doping, to write the above sentence. Did Pantani and Vino and Ullrich etc etc etc  have "a product that no-one else has or an ability to escape detection that no-one else"?


    Quote
    Or the simplest answer is that they're not doing anything the rest of the peleton isn't doing,

    So you think sky are doping and everyone else is doping but just dont like people claiming that sky dope more. Or you think they are all clean? That the sport suddenly essentially overnight and with no catalyst became clean in 2011.


    Quote
    or their training is just better.

    I dont get this. So Froome went from 0 to 100 because the training is so good? Or did Froome go from 0 to 100 because he suddenly became talented? Or did he go from 0 to 95 because of  the talent and 95 to 100 because of the training? Rogers and Porte also posted unreal improvements upon joining sky and Wiggins the year before. It was all down to training? Or did Sky just by pure massive coincidence pickup riders who post massive unnatural improvements midway/ late in their career.

    What reason is there to believe the training line anyway?  Sky flush the true believers with propaganda about how Kerrison reinvented physical exercise. But what else do we have other than sky themselves talking about how magical marginal gains are to actually suggest sky have such superior training? Its not like Kerrison is the first person credited with bringing sports science into cycling. And Sky's assertion that sports science was non existent in the sport before Tim came along asks a lot in the faith department.

  • ReplyReply
  • Despite the self-serving data benders and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within 'new age' cycling teams. Personally, I don't accept that the 'dark era' has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

    froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #554 on: February 18, 2013, 19:21 »
    Just to pose the questions as Hitch & Cap touched on it. If Sky are doping then what do people put their superiority down to? Do they have better techniques? Better this.. better that?
    And also why is it specifically Sky who are better when it comes to the doping stakes?

    Also just to point out that Sky do seem to have pooled and do pool much more money into "scientific" research, development than any other teams in the history of cycling. It may be not entirely accurate but I would be pretty sure of that.

    Edit:

    Quote
    What reason is there to believe the training line anyway?  Sky flush the true believers with propaganda about how Kerrison reinvented physical exercise.
    I would disagree with that, I don't see them really saying anything along those lines.
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #555 on: February 18, 2013, 19:34 »

    Edit:
    I would disagree with that, I don't see them really saying anything along those lines.

    You made a whole thread about how he was the greatest thing since round wheels.

    remember some of these quotes


    Quote from: Jullich
    At first when I saw the way Tim was working I was pretty skeptical. Then as soon as I'd figured it out, I was like, WOW! Why doesnt everyone else do it like this"

    Quote from: froome19
    Indeed Sky have rightfully applauded their genius coach and Wiggins has specifically attributed his Tour win down to Kerrison's coachin. Not only that but
    Quote from: Bailsford
    "The best man in cycling"

    Quote from: froome19
    Rogers as well claimed that has increased his power threshold by 5-7% since working with Kerrison.
    Love this bit though

    Quote from: Froome19
    Furthermore another example is that of Wiggins's time trialling which as markedly improved over the past two years. This is due to the fact that Kerrison has made Wiggins race his TTs at a lowed cadence
    :hitch
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31566
    • Liked: 11185
    • Awards: 2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #556 on: February 18, 2013, 19:36 »
    Without getting too involved as I've seen this film a few times.

    Define doping

    The WADA code or .........
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #557 on: February 18, 2013, 19:38 »
    Without getting too involved as I've seen this film a few times.


    me too. It was called- Le Tour de France 2004, official dvd. ;)
  • ReplyReply

  • froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #558 on: February 18, 2013, 19:55 »
    You made a whole thread about how he was the greatest thing since round wheels.

    remember some of these quotes

    Love this bit though
    :hitch
    True, but my point was not that he reinvented physical exercise, he has just brought together a lot of concepts from either his past experiences, other sports and whatnot. He also has a team who is much more committed to the science way than other teams and he also has more resources than other teams to dedicate to ensuring everything is scienced up. I don't think Kerrison is unique and can not be reproduced but it is the amount of resources and dedication which defines Sky not Kerrison. Without that expertise it would never have happened true, but Garmin have their own technical director whom I am sure is not too bad though probably not up to Kerrison's standard.

    This is from Dombro's interview today:

    Quote
    "I don't have anything to compare it to because I haven't been on other [professional] teams. Just talking to my buddies in the other teams, and hearing what it has been like for them, I think Sky's a cut above.

    "They have a pretty good grasp on what your capabilities are because they so closely monitor your power files. Every day I'm on my bike, the SRM records what I'm doing, then I upload it, I comment. That goes to all the race coaches at Sky and they all see what's going on. They comment back a lot of times... Every day you're in contact with the team. For me, I really like that it's hands-on and a lot of structure."
  • ReplyReply

  • Slow Rider

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 2607
    • Liked: 2504
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #559 on: February 18, 2013, 20:24 »
    I still don't see why Sky's performances are that suspect. Wiggins has always been extremely talented. Last year, he had a couple of courses that were perfectly suitable for him with a lot of ITT km's and little serious climbing. At the same time, Contador was suspended, Evans was off form, the Schlecks were completely washed up, Menchov was too old, the Dutch squad fell over, Sanchez had to withdraw... Only Nibali and VDB remained as serious competitors for Wiggins. And is it really that surprising Wiggins beats those two riders on a parcours that was basically taylor-made for him?

    Then there's the overall strength of the team. Porte, yes, he was strong. It surprised me too, but it was not unbelievable. He had shown talent before. Plus, his performances were good, but he didn't have a lot of competition from the other teams either. Nibali's support was a Basso who sucked at the Giro and was even weaker at the Tour, Szmyd who was terribly out of form, and Sagan who can do a lot, but not climb with the best. VDB had Vanendert, who had only one good day on which he instantly destroyed most of the Sky train. Radioshack was probably stronger, with guys like Zubeldia staying with the groups as long as Porte and Rogers.
    Rogers was good as well, but he has always been talented as well. Of course he had a bit of a history, so yes, he might have doped. Other riders on the team.. I remember EBH doing an excellent ride, but well, EBH is one of the most talented riders in the world right now. And besides, he's Scandinavian, so he can't be doped ;)

    Then there's Froome. Yes, he had a meteoric rise to the top, from a little known domestique to a GT contender in a very short time. But I remember our very own Froome (Froome19 that is) made an excellent post explaining Froome's life story and rise which sounded pretty convincing. But yes, Froome could certainly be doped.
    Other riders who performed well at Sky? Thomas, but he has been a very talented rider on the track and his conversion from track to road has seemed very believable to me. Stennard, same story. Uran and Henao, no indication of doping. Flecha, same thing.

    So from all the riders at team Sky, only Froome is really suspect. Rogers perhaps, but he has been a suspect character since before joining Sky. Sky's dominance was based on a very lucky combination of factors: other contenders not being able to compete, the relative weakness of other teams, a very favourable parcours. None of this has anything to do with doping.

    Yes, it is entirely possible that Froome is doped (though I'm personally still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). But you can't possibly say that an entire team dopes because of one guys' incredible performances. In my view, it is far more likely that Froome is on a personal programma, if he's even on anything. In terms of classics performance, or even performance in other GT's Sky haven't done anything special. They had one dominant performance in a GT, which they were lucky to have. With Contador back and supported by a stronger team than anything we've seen last year, I'm not that sure Sky's dominance will continue. Froome may continue to be great, but that doesn't have to mean a thing for the rest of the team.
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #560 on: February 18, 2013, 21:03 »

    True, but my point was not that he reinvented physical exercise, he has just brought together a lot of concepts from either his past experiences, other sports and whatnot. He also has a team who is much more committed to the science way than other teams and he also has more resources than other teams to dedicate to ensuring everything is scienced up. I don't think Kerrison is unique and can not be reproduced but it is the amount of resources and dedication which defines Sky not Kerrison. Without that expertise it would never have happened true, but Garmin have their own technical director whom I am sure is not too bad though probably not up to Kerrison's standard.

    This is from Dombro's interview today:

    Thats not.the tune you were.singing then. You and sky were very much hyping him as a 21st century einstein as a lot.of those threads show.




    Then there's Froome. Yes, he had a meteoric rise to the top, from a little known domestique to a GT contender in a very short time. But I remember our very own Froome (Froome19 that is) made an excellent post explaining Froome's life story and rise which sounded pretty convincing. But yes, Froome could certainly be doped.

    Froome makes a never before seen tranformation from guy about to.be dumped.from world.tour to joint best grand tour rider around. In a sport where every single person to have ever reached that level doped.
    Froomes number 1 fan - oh but he had blizharia. + he trains hard now. It makes sense.
    You - oh that makes.sense.

    Really?

    99% of dopers have never reached froomes current level. And almost all of the showed more talent in every single age bracket until 25 that froome did.

     You also.cite the fact that contador may beat froome( and he actually lost their last encounter) as suggestive of.froome being clean. This is the same contador who was named in puerto tested positive and now.works.with riis.

    The only other people in this world that confident that cycling is a totally clean sport where hard work and a good attitude will always prevail are pat mcquaid and David millar.

    Btw wiggins also beat nibali and vdb.in the 2011 vuelta that totally did not suit him. And he crushed both those riders in the mountains of the tour anyway, and froome even more so. I dont even know what you were trying to say with the " wiggins was always an immense talent" bit.


  • ReplyReply

  • Slow Rider

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 2607
    • Liked: 2504
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #561 on: February 18, 2013, 22:30 »
    Froome makes a never before seen tranformation from guy about to.be dumped.from world.tour to joint best grand tour rider around. In a sport where every single person to have ever reached that level doped.
    Froomes number 1 fan - oh but he had blizharia. + he trains hard now. It makes sense.
    You - oh that makes.sense.

    Really?

    99% of dopers have never reached froomes current level. And almost all of the showed more talent in every single age bracket until 25 that froome did.
    OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

    Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not. That talent was never apparent in his youth. So how then do we explain this lack of results during the first part of his career? Well, have a look at Froome19's topic for a potential explanation

    (on a side-note, the fact that someone is a fan of a rider, even his or her 'number one fan', doesn't make their arguments any less valid)

    Quote
    You also.cite the fact that contador may beat froome( and he actually lost their last encounter) as suggestive of.froome being clean. This is the same contador who was named in puerto tested positive and now.works.with riis.
    I never cite anything as evidence that either Contador or Froome is clean, since I have no evidence of either being clean or otherwise. All I'm saying there is that with Contador back, Sky's dominance will stop, or certainly be less one-sided. I'm trying to place things in perspective: Sky got very lucky last year. That luck has led to a domination, but that domination will not continue.

    Quote
    The only other people in this world that confident that cycling is a totally clean sport where hard work and a good attitude will always prevail are pat mcquaid and David millar.
    Sigh.. Where did you read anything in any of my posts ever that I believe cycling is a totally clean sport? That I'm not as sceptical as you are on every exceptional performance doesn't mean I'm an idiot. Of course there is doping in cycling. Froome may very well be doping, just as Contador might be doping, and Nibali, and even Jonathan Lovelock for all I know.

    However, I have not seen any evidence of them doping. Well, I've seen some of Contador which was pretty convinving, but not on the others. We can't go judge people on the basis of results alone, and that is what you (and many others) are doing.

    Quote
    Btw wiggins also beat nibali and vdb.in the 2011 vuelta that totally did not suit him. And he crushed both those riders in the mountains of the tour anyway, and froome even more so. I dont even know what you were trying to say with the " wiggins was always an immense talent" bit.
    Yep, both completely off form. Beating Nibali 2011 Vuelta doesn't prove anything in any way. It was Nibali's worst GT in years, he wasn't anything like his usual self there. And beating VDB in any race that is not the Tour doesn't exactly mean much either, now does it? ;)

    What I was trying to say with Wiggins talent is that Sky did nothing that is truly unbelievable for me. Certainly not with Wiggins. He was always talented, he got lucky with a good parcours for him and won. I have no clue why his performance would be more suspect than others. And I still have not heard a good explanation for why what they did is so exceptional that it is beyond belief Sky did it clean, only some talk about Froome's rise.
  • ReplyReply

  • froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #562 on: February 18, 2013, 23:06 »
    OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

    Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not. That talent was never apparent in his youth. So how then do we explain this lack of results during the first part of his career? Well, have a look at Froome19's topic for a potential explanation.
    +10000. I have raised this point many times on CN and have never received an answer. Froome's rise is suspicious but you just don't go from zero to hero. Lance never did, he was a talented bike rider even before his cancer (though he was probably doing before), even Cobo never did. If Froome was stripped of his drugs now would we see him drop all the way down back to where he originally was at?

    PEDs do not unlock ability they increase ability. Take Hounard how come he was doping anonymously whilst Froome rocketed up so considerably? And of course Froome is better than Hounard but that is besides the point. And most likely Froome had access to a much more detailed doping programme but then if so then I find it hard to believe that riders like Dombrowski are doping, if anything it is the big stars who would be indocrinated to the Tenerife group. So why is Froome all of a sudden up there?

    Furthermore how come Wiggins lost out to Froome so badly in the Vuelta? They were on the same programme, Froome may react better to PEDs but such a boost?

    Thats not.the tune you were.singing then. You and sky were very much hyping him as a 21st century einstein as a lot.of those threads show.

    I am not saying that Kerrison is not the difference for Sky, but it is not like he is doing anything insanely genius. This stuff is found in other sports and all over the place. It is not revolutionary stuff, but in the context of cycling it does come across in that way.
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6589
    • Liked: 4020
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #563 on: February 19, 2013, 00:54 »
    I am not really a sky fan by any means ... but I am with Captain Cavman here.  There is a lot of speculation - but no real facts at this point.

    I dont think really that the ENTIRE sky team is doping - but yes, its likely that some are.

    And at the end of the day, money and training count.  Big time.  Sky put a huge amount of money into the team - and better facilities, more access to equipment, training camps, doctors, nutritionists, physio etc ... it all counts.  Compare that to a lower budget team where only the big star gets his own physio, less training camps, 1 coach supervising multiple young guys etc ... those things make a huge difference.

    Still on the fence about Wiggo - he has a lot of natural talent, and has an awful lot to lose, but there are lots of things that dont add up ... so I just dont know.
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #564 on: February 19, 2013, 12:47 »
    OK, I'll follow your view. 99% of dopers have never reached Froome's level, and all of those are more talented as evidenced from their youth results. Then what the hell is Froome on and how do I get it? And more importantly, how did he as a completely unknown rider gain access to this drug and manage to avoid suspension? And why has no one else used this wonderous form of doping that is apparently so incredible successful that it can raise a (going by youth results) barely talented rider to such a level?

    Even if you believe Froome is on a better doping programme from anyone else in the peloton (which I doubt, I don't see how his personal programme is so much better than anyone elses), he still needs to have an enormous level of natural talent. Certainly more than guys like Wiggins, Porte and Rogers, since those are (according to the conspiracy theorists) on the same Sky-wide doping programme as Froome. Ergo, Froome is very talented, whether he dopes or not.

    You are trying to make this discussion about whether froome has a better doping programme and point.out flaws in that theory questioning how he could get a better product etc.

    But no one said froome has to have a better doping programme.

    No.one said froome has.to have anything better than others. For.all.we know schleck contador balverde etc are all doping similarly and would also be weak without drugs or are poor responders.

    The fact is though they did all.dope.

    So.to believe he, alone, is achieving that level clean (even before taking into account his ridiculous improvement) is to believe he is a 1 in 30.years talent.

    As for the improvements if you made a list of the 10 biggest improvements in the history of the sport wiggins and froome would be 1 and 2. The other 8 all.took epo.

    Clean? Immediately after sky say they want to win the tour with a British rider in 5 years but have no.one to do it with, just like that 2 British passengers.of the autobus  suddenly realize they have 1 in a million gt talent. And both possess this strong commitment to doing it clean that no.one.else.in.the sport seems.to.have? I don't think one needs to.be that big a cynic.to question this fairy tale.
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #565 on: February 19, 2013, 13:25 »
    +10000. I have raised this point many times on CN and have never received an answer. Froome's rise is suspicious but you just don't go from zero to hero. Lance never did, he was a talented bike rider even before his cancer (though he was probably doing before), even Cobo never did. If Froome was stripped of his drugs now would we see him drop all the way down back to where he originally was at?


    Seriously - Lance never doped ergo no dopers did, is not the kind of logic one expects from someone with 2000 posts.
    And it makes no sense anyway since Lance was already doping as a youngster so the base level from which you say he didnt  improve that much  was already based on heavy doping to begin with.

    There are plenty of people who went donkey to racehorse. Riis, Kashechkin, Kohl, Jalabert, to name a few and people who have been watching cycling longer than me will know far more and far better examples.

    So sorry the - no one ever went from 0 to hero argument is unfortunately very incorrect.

    Not that that means Froome is entirely down to doping. Its  possible that Froome is very talented. But that his improvement came down entirely to special circumstances and talent is even more preposterous  than the it was all down  to doping theory you ridicule.

    Quote
    even Cobo never did.
    you are not suggesting Cobo doped but Froome didnt are you? :-x Whats your proof on cobo?

    Quote
    PEDs do not unlock ability they increase ability. Take Hounard how come he was doping anonymously whilst Froome rocketed up so considerably? And of course Froome is better than Hounard but that is besides the point. And most likely Froome had access to a much more detailed doping programme but then if so then I find it hard to believe that riders like Dombrowski are doping, if anything it is the big stars who would be indocrinated to the Tenerife group. So why is Froome all of a sudden up there?
    Quote
    Furthermore how come Wiggins lost out to Froome so badly in the Vuelta? They were on the same programme, Froome may react better to PEDs but such a boost?
    Froome was already better than wiggins as a climber when they were both sh*t. There is nothing strange about it remaining that way now.
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #566 on: February 19, 2013, 13:39 »
    I think he's saying that Cobo won a GT clean which was always going to be possible based on his clean 2007 Pais Vasco performance. Cobo had motivational issues too so like most of the other stories, is excused from his dormant years.
  • ReplyReply

  • Slow Rider

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 2607
    • Liked: 2504
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #567 on: February 19, 2013, 16:01 »
    You are trying to make this discussion about whether froome has a better doping programme and point.out flaws in that theory questioning how he could get a better product etc.[/b]

    But no one said froome has to have a better doping programme.

    No.one said froome has.to have anything better than others. For.all.we know schleck contador balverde etc are all doping similarly and would also be weak without drugs or are poor responders.

    The fact is though they did all.dope.

    So.to believe he, alone, is achieving that level clean (even before taking into account his ridiculous improvement) is to believe he is a 1 in 30.years talent.
    If he doesn't have a better programme than all other riders, then he has to be more talented. Certainly more talented than riders such as Contador, Wiggins, Porte, Schleck, Evans, who according to you are all doped on the same. So Froome must be very talented, yet no one had seen that talent. Why was that?

    You're saying Froome is a nobody with no talent who got on a good program and suddenly became great. I don't think that's possible, and certainly not without taking excessive risks of getting caught.

    Quote
    As for the improvements if you made a list of the 10 biggest improvements in the history of the sport wiggins and froome would be 1 and 2. The other 8 all.took epo.
    Wiggins made a change from one discipline to the other. He was one of the best track riders in the world before he transferred to the road. So yes, he was hugely talented. From there, he changed to road cycling and became a good TT'er and after losing a lot of weight a decent climber. I'm not saying he defintely did this without any doping, but it doesn't seem that impossible to change from one of the best track riders into a good road rider with specific training. And he showed this talent at Garmin, before changing to Sky and their supposed programme.

    Quote
    Clean? Immediately after sky say they want to win the tour with a British rider in 5 years but have no.one to do it with, just like that 2 British passengers.of the autobus  suddenly realize they have 1 in a million gt talent. And both possess this strong commitment to doing it clean that no.one.else.in.the sport seems.to.have? I don't think one needs to.be that big a cynic.to question this fairy tale.
    It's suspicious, certainly. But a vague suspicion does not equal proof that the whole of Team Sky is in a conspiracy to get a British Tour winner through doping. Again, we can't judge riders or teams on performances alone. There will always be some people who stand out, even from a (hypothetical) completely clean field. And yes, it's entirely possible that Froome is a 'once in 30 years' talent.
  • ReplyReply

  • Zam

    • everything and nothing.
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: re
    • Posts: 2671
    • Liked: 485
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #568 on: February 19, 2013, 18:26 »
    I think he's saying that Cobo won a GT clean which was always going to be possible based on his clean 2007 Pais Vasco performance. Cobo had motivational issues too so like most of the other stories, is excused from his dormant years.

    Cobo have always been clean, sure there are rumours but not a single evidence. :cool:
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 8066
    • Liked: 6777
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #569 on: February 19, 2013, 18:26 »
    Seriously - Lance never doped ergo no dopers did, is not the kind of logic one expects from someone with 2000 posts.

    Some good back-and-forth on this thread, but let's keep the criticism focused on the arguments rather than the users who make them. ;)
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top