collapse


froome19

  • Classics Winner
  • Country: gb
  • Posts: 4934
  • Liked: 2048
  • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
Re: Sky
« Reply #570 on: February 19, 2013, 19:08 »
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.
I don't get what you mean about the bit about Lance having never doped ,it was meant as an example nothing more. Also I noted that Lance was doping before cancer but he generally is used as the example of someone who can be transformed by PEDs so I stuck by him anyways.

Quote
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.

I never said the bolded. Check the Froome thread for what I think could have been the reason. I am not convinced myself but I do perceive it as a viable alternative. Also I don't ridicule the doping theory, just I don't believe it is fair to condemn him like that based on nothing of proper substance.
Quote
you are not suggesting Cobo doped but Froome didnt are you? :-x Whats your proof on cobo?
Not me but most people consider Cobo to be doping, I attempt to refrain from condemning him yet. True though maybe there are better examples out there.

Quote
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.
You didn't answer the question about why Froome? Also just for clarification are you saying that Wiggins was doping in 2009? Because Froome pre Vuelta 2011 certainly did not match Wiggins Tour 2009.
Also I don't think it takes a whole big jump in logic to say that Wiggins was always capable of climbing at for example his 2009 level. He just had never tried it due to his track commitments. We are going to see more and more people coming off the track and being capable of challenging in hilly and possibly GTs I believe and I would not be so surprised if a rider who was so obviously talented as Wiggins was capable of climbing well when he came off the track. Was everyone shouting "doper" in 2009? True they are totally different, but he certainly had not explored his limits of climbing prior to 2009.
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith

    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 #571 on: February 19, 2013, 19:37 »
    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.

    No, i.never said froome  has no.talent.

    What he doesn't have however is the talent to reach a higher level.clean than all the dopers on dope.

    Once again you are trying to make.the discussion about how.much froome dopes, ridiculing the idea the he is 100% drug fueled.

    To.me.that is unimportant. Froome may very well be more.talented than.most others. Though judging by his original performances i think.the reverse.is.more.likely i.nevertheless don't rule.out that he may be more talented than them because they may have been doping from.earlier ( especially schleck).


  • 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.

    esafosfina

    • Neo Pro
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 288
    • Liked: 325
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #572 on: February 19, 2013, 19:53 »
    Starting to hear some curious things about Royal Liverpool Hospital's endocrinology dept. Will keep you up to speed as I hear more, if indeed there is more.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Sturgess, don't you dare get off that bike" - Sean Kelly, Nokere, 1989.

    Slow Rider

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 2607
    • Liked: 2504
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #573 on: February 19, 2013, 20:46 »
    No, i.never said froome  has no.talent.

    What he doesn't have however is the talent to reach a higher level.clean than all the dopers on dope.

    Once again you are trying to make.the discussion about how.much froome dopes, ridiculing the idea the he is 100% drug fueled.

    To.me.that is unimportant. Froome may very well be more.talented than.most others. Though judging by his original performances i think.the reverse.is.more.likely i.nevertheless don't rule.out that he may be more talented than them because they may have been doping from.earlier ( especially schleck).
    I took this to mean you didn't think he was all that talented, which seemed pretty vital to your argument:

    Quote
    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.
    But the point remains, who says he doesn't have the talent to beat some riders who are doped? According to most, doping is far less extreme than it used to be, as evidenced by worse times on climbs. Then it becomes more likely for exceptionally talented clean riders to compete with doped competition.

    Again, and I keep repeating this, I'm not saying this is definitely what happened. It's entirely possible Froome is doped. However, I still have not seen any convincing evidence of this, and I refuse to brand someone a doper based exclusively on their results.
  • ReplyReply

  • DB-Coop

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 2685
    • Liked: 1784
    • Awards: KeithJamesMC Memorial award for Extremely Outstanding Content 2014Avatar of 2014Velorooms Vuelta Velogames Winner 2014
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #574 on: February 20, 2013, 14:19 »
    Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

    The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31566
    • Liked: 11186
    • 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 #575 on: February 20, 2013, 14:22 »
    Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

    The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.

    Well that´s put the last nail in Wiggins and Froome coffins   ;)   :lol
     
  • 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

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #576 on: February 20, 2013, 15:15 »
    Erm, Ferrari was there purely for training plans.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31566
    • Liked: 11186
    • 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 #577 on: February 20, 2013, 15:17 »
    Erm, Ferrari was there purely for training plans.

     :D
  • ReplyReply

  • Zam

    • everything and nothing.
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: re
    • Posts: 2671
    • Liked: 485
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #578 on: February 20, 2013, 15:23 »
    Well considering that Froome was found to have Bilharzia in 2010 and that he might have had this for quite some time, and that it results in Anemia and other conditions that would reduce performance, I think that could be a definite explanation for him under preforming early on as oppose to his later performances.

    The time gap in the tour was not that amazing when you think of it, the Osymetric chain rings on the TT's can explain approximately 3 minutes of the performance, when you take that into account Froome and Nibali performed equally on the TT's and in the mountains, and Wiggins never attacked up any mountain and appeared weaker there than Froome and Nibali, I see no reason why Wiggins and Froome shouldn't possibly be clean if Nibali is clean.

    Nibali is clean?
  • ReplyReply

  • DB-Coop

    • Classics Winner
    • *
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 2685
    • Liked: 1784
    • Awards: KeithJamesMC Memorial award for Extremely Outstanding Content 2014Avatar of 2014Velorooms Vuelta Velogames Winner 2014
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #579 on: February 20, 2013, 15:28 »
    Nibali is clean?

    People somehow manage to misunderstand my post completely, I was not stating that Sky was or was not clean, neither am I stating if Nibali is or is not clean, I'm just stating that the speculations that the gap from Sky to #2 is so big that they have to cheat is not true, it is possible that Sky and other teams cheat the same way, that neither cheat or that they cheat to varying degrees, just trying to state that we can not say from the tour results that Sky is the only cheaters, or that they cheat in a larger scale than Nibali or VDB does, we don't know yet, but as time goes we might get more insight into it.
  • ReplyReply

  • Slow Rider

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: nl
    • Posts: 2607
    • Liked: 2504
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #580 on: February 20, 2013, 15:31 »
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #581 on: February 20, 2013, 15:31 »
    Nibali is clean?

    Can we get Basso on his clean program?

    I got faith, Amadio will sort this sh*t.
  • 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 #582 on: March 08, 2013, 03:23 »
    Watching chickens interview i can't imagine how anyone can not get suspicious everytime lienders and what he was doing are mentioned. The guy seems to be a doping mastermind around who the doping programmes functioned.

    Then again im probably not imagining hard enough. Rasmussen is like landis and Hamilton, making up.lies out of bitterness.
  • ReplyReply

  • pedaling squares

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: ca
    • Posts: 325
    • Liked: 107
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #583 on: March 08, 2013, 05:58 »
    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.

    But isn't that a recycled version of the same argument USPS fans gave us 10 yrs ago? USPS were far from the only doping team in the peloton, they had a big budget, they tried new technologies with training and equipment, they were early adopters of the wind tunnel, helmet fairings, etc. What we heard from USPS was essentially marginal gains under a different banner. But we suspected otherwise then and we know better now. And Sky's rapid ascension, their about-turn with Kimmage, their quick dumping of (formerly of course) dirty personnel between the TDF and the knighthoods, and the obligatory dodgy doc who, despite being a blood transfusion specialist, apparently had other skills that made him the best choice for team clean... I don't know anything for certain, but it all smells a little 2001 to me.
  • ReplyReply
  • "Well don't run with the riders, you twit."

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #584 on: March 08, 2013, 06:06 »
    Watching chickens interview i can't imagine how anyone can not get suspicious everytime lienders and what he was doing are mentioned. The guy seems to be a doping mastermind around who the doping programmes functioned.

    Yeh, I think the idea that he could have just been an accessory or silent observer at Rabo is now incorrect. He was an enabler of the highest order (as far as team payroll docs go).
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1697
    • Liked: 215
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #585 on: March 08, 2013, 11:57 »
    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.


    How about their close and cosy realtionship with the UCI and ASO? Worked for Armstrong. Sky bleated about how they were doing it USPS 'style' before the USADA thing blew up in the media.

    We have seen plenty of times in the past how teams had better doping programs than others. Why not sky? Why not better management of their doping? When they talk of marginal gains maybe it is related to their doping. The hiring of Leinders is a very blackmark against Sky. Froome's skyrocketing is another mystery only explained by doping imo. Wiggin's going from the bus to podium and mystery only explained by doping imo. The peloton aint cleaner. We have plenty of recent evidence of teams using doping and not testing positive. BMC soigneur caught with dope. Pozzatto admitting to working with Ferarri. Ibarguren. Lefevere. Saronni. I look around the sport and I dont see a cleaner sport. I see all the ex dopers running teams and riders who served bans back winning again or on podiums and sentences of months during the off season instead of long bans from the sport. Nothing has changed.
  • ReplyReply
  • "ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78

    esafosfina

    • Neo Pro
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 288
    • Liked: 325

    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 #587 on: March 09, 2013, 16:13 »
    There was some good rider purchasing and plenty of other specious excuses but - and I know I'm jumping the gun here - but the GC of Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico? Whatever these fools are doing or not doing, this is not the kind of tedious cycling I want to watch.

    Wiggins will fail in the Giro, that's my hunch, and I'm not yet convinced Froome can win the Tour. However, there are plenty of shorter stage races they can still turn into pro wrestling.
  • 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

    Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #588 on: March 09, 2013, 16:20 »
    I agree, this doesn't look sustainable. I would expect two if not three of their top5 guys to be at other teams for 2014.
  • ReplyReply

  • jobiwan

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Country: us
    • Posts: 359
    • Liked: 108
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #589 on: March 09, 2013, 19:49 »
    For the record, I don't know if they're doing anything or not.
    It's still annoying to watch. I think Froome's almost a lock for le Tour.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #590 on: March 09, 2013, 21:48 »
    There was some good rider purchasing and plenty of other specious excuses but - and I know I'm jumping the gun here - but the GC of Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico? Whatever these fools are doing or not doing, this is not the kind of tedious cycling I want to watch.

    Wiggins will fail in the Giro, that's my hunch, and I'm not yet convinced Froome can win the Tour. However, there are plenty of shorter stage races they can still turn into pro wrestling.
    I still think that Sky are mostly profiting from a meltdown everywhere else. US cycling, ongoing Puerto case, Radioshack implosion, Contador ban and subsequent loss of dominance (so far), Schleck disintegration, Evans decline, Basso likewise, Mantova, Rabobank  withdrawal, Katusha World Tour status etc.

    Every year, Sky improve their roster and it seems as though their main rivals hit problems.

    Is it boring? I don't know, I've enjoyed this year's P_N more than most, Porte and Talansky have ridden with panache. As for T_A, would it be less boring if Contador rode away from everyone as he did most races until his ban?
  • ReplyReply

  • froome19

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 4934
    • Liked: 2048
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #591 on: March 09, 2013, 22:39 »
    In terms of "boringness", I fail to see how Sky made TA anymore boring than the same stage was last year. Today's stage I really enjoyed watching, and I generally find races with Froome quite exciting as you never seem to think he has it in him but then at the last moment he goes for it and destroys everyone else. Admittedly the Sky train was boring but last year I was bored watching the Prato di Tivo until Nibali attacked at 3.8km.

    Paris Nice I also didn't find very boring (and I don't think it was only because I am a Sky fan) and that was also because Sky didn't actually have it in the bag and were not in control. Actually Imo Porte's attack saved the day and turned what could have been a disastrous stage  and anticlimatic stage with limited GC gaps into a pretty decent one.

    Sky seem to get their roster spot on as well. Their talent to success conversion ratio seems to be much higher than most other teams.
  • 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 #592 on: March 10, 2013, 01:54 »


    Sky seem to get their roster spot on as well. Their talent to success conversion ratio seems to be much higher than most other teams.

    Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6589
    • Liked: 4020
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #593 on: March 10, 2013, 02:03 »
    I have really quite enjoyed PN.  Its been a good race, and pretty exciting to watch.  Sky have taken their turn, but it hasnt been a black and blue train the whole way.

    TA last night not so much - but I am not really Froome's biggest fan.  Still, he rode well, took his opportunity and made it count.  I would have liked to see Nibali win, but thats not really Sky's fault  :D

    I do hope they dont dominate the whole season though. I dont think another whole year of Sky-bashing is good for cycling
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #594 on: March 10, 2013, 10:09 »
    Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
    Why don't you simply recruit better riders?
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #595 on: March 10, 2013, 10:49 »
    Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing

    Cheater, training camps are at least authentic.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #596 on: March 10, 2013, 11:18 »
    Same thing happens to me on PCM when i go into editor and give all my riders an extra 5 points climbing
    Alternatively you could just take 5 points off everyone else?
  • 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 #597 on: March 10, 2013, 12:35 »




    Why don't

    you simply recruit better riders?
    That's not what bailsford does.


    Alternatively you could just take 5 points off everyone else?

    As I saw pointed out, if everyone has gotten worse, why aren't they all zigzagging on hills with froome?
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #598 on: March 10, 2013, 12:59 »
    Santambrogio better than Mantova days and Quick Step producing climbers, definitely -5 there.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 1917
    • Liked: 1285
    Re: Sky
    « Reply #599 on: March 10, 2013, 17:26 »


    That's not what bailsford does.
    eh? You think Morris Possoni is better than Uran? Calzati better than Henao? Lovqvist better than Porte? Nicolas Portal better than Sivtsov? Cioni better than Cataldo? Serge Pauwels better than Kiryenka? Kjell Karlstrom better than David Lopez?

    The only rider ever released by Brailsford who would be of use assisting a GT challenge is Rogers.


    As I saw pointed out, if everyone has gotten worse, why aren't they all zigzagging on hills with froome?
    But you're shifting your stance. Your comment was about the whole Sky team, now you're trying to wriggle out of it with an attack on Froome alone. I saw that zigzagging pointed out too, and just about everyone (apart from you clearly) took the pee out of Brodeal for making it. Deservedly so.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top