Sky - Page 939 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9381  
Old 12-03-12, 18:14
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
What makes you so sure Phinney is clean?
Thehog gets it and so do you. Mini Phinney is the next iteration.

Time for another "Good post Hog."
__________________
Wefunk Radio: funkify your life!
http://www.wefunkradio.com/radio/
Reply With Quote
  #9382  
Old 12-03-12, 18:38
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
Why pretend to have a discussion when a personal attack is so much easier?

What is the counter-argument to my crackpot theory?

-The UCI is a benevolent organization of Terrorists with the best interests of the sport in mind?
-Pat and Hein would never suppress a doping positive?
-Pat and Hein run a fair dealing federation?
-Sky is clean because they've never tested positive?
-The grand tour squad (ex. Froome) has always ridden like they did in 2012?

C'mon now. Tear down my crackpot theory. Let's see it.
I like your theory.

Only this:
In 2010/11 already outsiders such as us crackpots in the Clinic were able to predict that the UCI is going down, bringing along the obvious risk that any hypothesized deals between UCI and Sky are exposed. Iow: Brailsford must have known in 2011 (or whenever it was he made the deal) that going into bed with the UCI is a risky business.
Has he been naive? Or has he calculated the risks and concluded they are negligible compared to the awards?

Last edited by sniper; 12-03-12 at 18:44.
Reply With Quote
  #9383  
Old 12-03-12, 18:42
IzzyStradlin's Avatar
IzzyStradlin IzzyStradlin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 153
Default

So the 2013 plan appears to be Wiggo dodges Contador.....and serve Froome up as the sacrificial lame. F-his-L.
Reply With Quote
  #9384  
Old 12-03-12, 18:51
Dazed and Confused Dazed and Confused is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
In 8 years time Taylor Phinney will be making the following statement:


"Its sad to read the fallout from the Sky investigations. It obviously occurred a long time ago in 2012 but its us cyclists here and now who have to pick up the pieces from what Wiggins and Froome did from 2012 to 2016. Its not good for cycling. I can safely say that the generation of cyclists now in 2020 are clean"
Very good.
Will the time up AdH be faster or slower than in 2011/13?
Reply With Quote
  #9385  
Old 12-03-12, 19:12
Bernie's eyesore's Avatar
Bernie's eyesore Bernie's eyesore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
Why pretend to have a discussion when a personal attack is so much easier?

What is the counter-argument to my crackpot theory?

-The UCI is a benevolent organization of Terrorists with the best interests of the sport in mind?
-Pat and Hein would never suppress a doping positive?
-Pat and Hein run a fair dealing federation?
-Sky is clean because they've never tested positive?
-The grand tour squad (ex. Froome) has always ridden like they did in 2012?

C'mon now. Tear down my crackpot theory. Let's see it.
There's not really anything to tear down on your theory unless you can explain to me why you think the Olympics would have been a failure if Wiggins hadn't won the Tour. Murray lost the Wimbledon final for example but the Olympics did fine without him winning it. None of the other points you made have anything to do with your theory whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #9386  
Old 12-03-12, 19:36
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyWorks View Post
Hold on. First we have to know what the formula is before you go knocking down my crackpot theory. I could be completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Do you have any specific information regarding the distribution formula?
Handily enough, yes, a bit.

Sports are split into 4 groups. Athletics is alone in group 1 - it gets most, about twice as much as everyone else. In this cycle they hope for around $35m

Cycling is in group 2, with swimming, gymnastics and a few others. they all get the same as each other, in 2012 case hopefully around $18 each. Group 3 - $13m, group 4 $11m.

Your place in the order is decided by, and the monies distributed by the Association of International Olympic Sports Federations, which is made up of members of all the currently 26 sports.

Neither the IOC nor the BOA have any say in that distribution whatsoever, except for the IOC handing over the 'block grant' in the first place.

A slight bump for GB viewing figures makes absolutely no difference to this mechanism (and given Beijing track success, cycling is already going to be the hottest ticket in town; Sky won't alter that)

Now how the AISOF determines the share per group I don't know, hence my uncertainty on the formula - but I do know it's decided as a group - individual sports, bar arguably athletics as the entirety of Group 1, are not catered for separately.

Are we happy now?

Quote:
I see Pat endlessly talking about the "growth" of cycling when it's just not happening globally. Which is why I am lead to believe that there is a viewership component to how that money is distributed. What did the Sky fairy tale do for cycling during the Olympics? Boost viewership.
You seriously think after the Hoy driven Beijing performance, Sky were needed to boost viewership?
Reply With Quote
  #9387  
Old 12-03-12, 19:58
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saz
Posts: 13,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
Id like to think im not as much of a nutjob about this as others ( i don't for example think wiggins smoking is proof of doing) but i am disappointed by the interview and here is why.

When you have wiggins praising lance Armstrong as an inspiration for his win all year, now claiming he has never ridden with lance and that doping was "15 years ago" and froome becoming best rider in the world out of nowhere and guys like rogers and Barry and yates being hired even though everyone knew they had a past, and whatsmorr rogers finding the form of his life and wiggins, who spoke frankly about doping when he wasn't very good now cursing at the very idea of a doping question, and lienders in lswept under the rug for months before being dealt with only when the **** hit the fan and most importantly, bailsford treating anti doping entirely as a political campaign and not doing a single anti doping thing unless it can be sold to a very naive press (same press which believed pass 500 tests = doping not possible).

And here comes walsh and says that he bekieves sky are clean bevause vaughters ( who is hardly a stranger to running his own game) says that wiggins might could if everything went well with 2 ymore ears at garmjn have resembled something like the one we saw at sky, well that to me sounds like a massivr cop out that totaly plasters over the entire debate because "vaughters says so"


And id like to think that in an alternate universe in which my mind worked differently and for some reason i took the side that wiggins and bailsford really were the frontline against doping and that they only appeared to some people of above average intellgence to be on the other side because they have the self control of mr bean, id like to think thay even if i was on that side id still see dws interview as a cop out that does not adress the discussion at all.


Btw as regards kimmage i recall in the post lance stuff walsh was the one who said " i really hope wiggins is clean" and " he should speak out against this" which bailsford of course heard and arranged the scripted 2 minute promo where wiggins says that lance cheated and wiggins did not.
Kimmage meanwhile was asking sky questions.

Also is it not true that kimmage arrived far earlier at the lance doped conclusion?

So i have far more confident in kimmage than walsh. Hell i even posted a few months ago that i didnt think walsh knew half as much about doping as kimmage and was shut down by bennoti.

So lets leave the - its as if kimmage came out and said sky was clean for when the big man actually comes our and says it.

Not that i woulr.neccesarily move with kimmage, i believe the weakness with all these people os.that they want nothing else in life than clean cycling whereas one should never let your emoions cloud your judgment. Walsh clearly does and kimmage probably too but he is imo far stronger and has maybe seen enough to be a real cynic.
Pretty much this. Great post, Hitch.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tte de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #9388  
Old 12-03-12, 20:52
dolophonic's Avatar
dolophonic dolophonic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 584
Default

Yes well put Hitch. As usual
Reply With Quote
  #9389  
Old 12-03-12, 21:08
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,106
Default

something of a half interview with Ashenden, from today I think, though there's no date indicated. http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.a...OND&sec=sports
Reference to Wiggins/Sky:
Quote:
Bradley Wiggins, who rides for Team Sky, became the first Briton to win the Tour de France in 2012.

Team Sky has a zero tolerance policy towards staff members with a doping history and Wiggins angrily dismissed doping-related questions en route to his Tour triumph in the summer.

Ashenden said he was not accusing Wiggins of any wrongdoing but underlining the credibility issue the sport faces.

"That would be a remarkable day, when a rider can stand up and say "I won and you know that I didn't dope", blood dope, I need to be specific there," he said.

"The unfortunate reality is that everything that a rider can say today, Lance Armstrong already said. The reality is, no matter what a rider says, there is going to be doubt," he added.
Didn't Kimmage say something similar today?
At least different from the incredulous Millar/JV "Sky are clean" tune.
Reply With Quote
  #9390  
Old 12-03-12, 22:34
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
something of a half interview with Ashenden, from today I think, though there's no date indicated. http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.a...OND&sec=sports
Reference to Wiggins/Sky:

Didn't Kimmage say something similar today?
At least different from the incredulous Millar/JV "Sky are clean" tune.
Where's Richie Porte today? Has he been talking again?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.