Sky - Page 1023 - 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
  #10221  
Old 12-20-12, 22:07
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saíz
Posts: 14,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer the Half Wit View Post
Most of LS's excellent posts are, naturally, about the past. Suspicious performances, suspicious team mates, suspicious doctors etc. Any one of which in isolation you could dismiss easily. However, as I understand it, for him (and that is where I disagree with him) all these things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping.
At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious? What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?

These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Nothing more to it. It requires a leap of faith from a cynical fanbase, and relies on that fanbase wanting to buy what's being sold to them. The casual fan may buy it, but for the hardcore fans, it's harder. There's too much smoke to wave away the suspicious as conspiracy theorist nutjobs, however. Naturally, there are some conspiracy theorist nutjobs, but it's not possible, unless one is a pro-Sky Betonkopf, to simply dismiss all of those suspicious of Sky as conspiracy theorists; there's far too much smoke that's gathered for that. Certainly I could live without certain ambiguous or even totally innocent quotes being spun as part of some vast network of lies (like people comparing Wiggins' victory celebration in the ITT to Floyd's, or the conflation of Wiggins' post-Tour quote about dreams coming true with Armstrong's one about believing in miracles, as if an aspiring cyclist might never have dreamed of the Tour), but there are plenty of reasons to suspect Sky might be about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger served on the Sabbath.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tête de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #10222  
Old 12-20-12, 22:19
armchairclimber's Avatar
armchairclimber armchairclimber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious? What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?

These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean

Nothing more to it. It requires a leap of faith from a cynical fanbase, and relies on that fanbase wanting to buy what's being sold to them. The casual fan may buy it, but for the hardcore fans, it's harder. There's too much smoke to wave away the suspicious as conspiracy theorist nutjobs, however. Naturally, there are some conspiracy theorist nutjobs, but it's not possible, unless one is a pro-Sky Betonkopf, to simply dismiss all of those suspicious of Sky as conspiracy theorists; there's far too much smoke that's gathered for that. Certainly I could live without certain ambiguous or even totally innocent quotes being spun as part of some vast network of lies (like people comparing Wiggins' victory celebration in the ITT to Floyd's, or the conflation of Wiggins' post-Tour quote about dreams coming true with Armstrong's one about believing in miracles, as if an aspiring cyclist might never have dreamed of the Tour), but there are plenty of reasons to suspect Sky might be about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger served on the Sabbath.
Personally I though that Armstrong was probably doping...along with everyone else...from day one. I've never considered there to be a will to change until the last couple of years.

I don't think cycling is clean...and there are dots you can join pretty much everywhere BUT I do believe in JV and (less so) DM. I do doubt that British Cycling have a doping programme...though it is, of course possible. And BMW is clean of all but recreational drugs.
Reply With Quote
  #10223  
Old 12-20-12, 22:35
the sceptic's Avatar
the sceptic the sceptic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armchairclimber View Post
Personally I though that Armstrong was probably doping...along with everyone else...from day one. I've never considered there to be a will to change until the last couple of years.

I don't think cycling is clean...and there are dots you can join pretty much everywhere BUT I do believe in JV and (less so) DM. I do doubt that British Cycling have a doping programme...though it is, of course possible. And BMW is clean of all but recreational drugs.
What would you say is the difference between skys domination in the 2012 tour and Postals domination in the Lance years?
Reply With Quote
  #10224  
Old 12-20-12, 22:45
Libertine Seguros's Avatar
Libertine Seguros Libertine Seguros is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Land of Saíz
Posts: 14,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RownhamHill View Post
ILook at any report into doping into cycling/TdeF - you'll often see LeMond hailed as the last 'clean' winner, or that the 'last 20 years' have been tainted. I don't know anyone with a passing interest in the sport who would make a serious argument that Indurain was clean. And indeed Indurain himself has past beyond trying to deny drug use - didn't he famously get asked, on live radio, whether he doped, with the presenter first explaining that if he responded by saying 'next question', the presenter would take that as a tacit admission? Indurain's response to the question: 'next question'.
Indurain was told at the outset of the interview that any question he didn't want to answer, he could just say "next question" and they'd move on. Most of the time he answered questions the interviewer thought he wouldn't. On doping, he said "next question". It's actually more direct than you thought - the interviewer at that point said, but Miguel, if you dodge that question I have to take it that you doped! Miguelón repeated his statement, more firmly.

It has been discussed here before, most notably in this post (with link).
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFiUlhAPes

Forever tête de la course.
Reply With Quote
  #10225  
Old 12-20-12, 23:38
JimmyFingers's Avatar
JimmyFingers JimmyFingers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitch View Post
Excuse me, by what right and on what basis do you tell me that my opinion will never change?

Just because you are incapable of thinking rationally because you are blinded by patriotism does not mean others are.

Dont make the mistake of thinking everyone is as small minded as you.

If youve forgoten again the case against Sky, then i urge you to skimread LS's posts once again.

Those arguments are what my case against Sky stands on, and I wont let you get away with trying to hide our arguments under the carpet and frame us as bitter conspiracy theorists out with a grudge.

And since you initiated the amateur mind reading hour, ill go ahead and make an attempt at it myself.

You say Walsh saying he hopes Sky may actually have won clean, gives you peace of mind.

Based on many of the contributions you have made to this subforum in the last few months I am going to go out on a limb and question if you even knew who Walsh was until he said he likes Sky.
Man you are all class. No one here puts more words into my mouth than you, misunderstands me yet reacts with insults and condescension and ignores me when I point out the error.

And you tell me I'm not rational? You over-react at every turn, jumping at insults that aren't there. And just swing back with more and more tawdry attacks.

You need to get a grip and realise not everywhere is a battleground for you to throw your weight around in. You disagree with me, it doesn't mean I'm angry with you, in the slightest. I understand the doubts and suspicions and accept them. I choose not to agree with them, but either that just fundamentally makes you mad or you just completely fail to get what I am saying. I am hoping I am being less ambiguous with this post.
Reply With Quote
  #10226  
Old 12-21-12, 00:38
Ferminal Ferminal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post

I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean
0) Have a special meeting with Lady Amaury to make sure she believes you are clean.
Reply With Quote
  #10227  
Old 12-21-12, 01:04
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the sceptic View Post
What would you say is the difference between skys domination in the 2012 tour and Postals domination in the Lance years?
Honestly?

A significantly easier peleton to control.

USP controlled w whole Ullrich and Basso included, doped to the gills, not to mention Vinikourov, Beloki and others.

Sky had a race with no Schleck, No Berti, a patently unwell Evans, and basically only Nibali to really deal with, being 2 on 1'd by Froome/Wiggins.

Even in the earlier races, Schelck and Evans were not in the best form. It's been one of those years, really.

Styalistic similarity to USPS is one of the less convincing links between Sky and LA and doping. I suspect the Sean Yates connection is more fertile ground for conspiracy.
Reply With Quote
  #10228  
Old 12-21-12, 01:13
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine Seguros View Post
At what point did you come to the conclusion that Lance Armstrong was suspicious?
AS the guy said, almost day one. Specifically, the Bassons incident.

A clean rider, trying to 'save' the tour, doesn't pick on the one obviously clean rider in the peleton. I didn't know enough about cycling back then to know about omerta directly - but I knew a ball-squeeze when i saw one. I was pretty much anti-tex thereafter. It was a very frustrating six years, as it became more and more apparent.



Quote:
What would it take for you to say that Sky are suspicious? Not that Sky are definitely doping, but for you to say that the doubters are not wrong to have doubts?
I'm perfectly happy with doubts, right now. I just think the link from doubts -> complete certainty is made rather too easily, and with rather too little evidence.

"trust but verify" "i have my worries" -> healthy scepticism
"i just know they cheat" -> cynical bias

Quote:
These things taken together suggest Sky and/or individual riders on Sky are doping. That's a key word, suggest. It is theoretically possible for riders to do as Sky did last year clean. Theoretically. But it requires some serious leaps of faith regarding the clean capabilities of guys like "Freiburg" Mick "Ferrari" Rogers and Chris "Anyone Who Wins The Anatomic Jock Race Must Be A GT Contender" Froome, when realistically, because of illness and injuries, and Rogers' history of shady association until the point at which illness and injury started to derail things for him, judging those riders' clean potential is not a very exact science for pretty much any of us. If you believe that an aging Aussie time trial specialist who has been involved in not one but two doping scandals, clean, is one of the elite climbing talents of the péloton, then fine, but I don't.
I'm not sure how Rogers was cycling like an elite climbing talent. He did his bit, then fell off completely. Elite talents tend to make it to the top.

Quote:
I think we can both agree on one thing, though. If Sky truly are a clean team, they have done a completely fricking horrible job of showcasing that. So far their policy of publicising clean cycling has consisted of the following plan:
1) win races
2) ?
3) say it was clean
I don't think their PR is great, no.
Reply With Quote
  #10229  
Old 12-21-12, 01:18
ferryman's Avatar
ferryman ferryman is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LostinFife
Posts: 2,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinvickers View Post
Honestly?

A significantly easier peleton to control.

USP controlled w whole Ullrich and Basso included, doped to the gills, not to mention Vinikourov, Beloki and others.

Sky had a race with no Schleck, No Berti, a patently unwell Evans, and basically only Nibali to really deal with, being 2 on 1'd by Froome/Wiggins.

Even in the earlier races, Schelck and Evans were not in the best form. It's been one of those years, really.

Styalistic similarity to USPS is one of the less convincing links between Sky and LA and doping. I suspect the Sean Yates connection is more fertile ground for conspiracy.
Stylistically, is, in my opinion, the biggest link between the two. It really was Groundhog day for me in July this year and it was very very very depressing.
Reply With Quote
  #10230  
Old 12-21-12, 01:21
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferryman View Post
Stylistically, is, in my opinion, the biggest link between the two. It really was Groundhog day for me in July this year and it was very very very depressing.
If it's the biggest link, it ain't a very substantial one. Very much 'intuition' rather than 'evidence'.
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 08:10.


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.