The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get - Page 62 - 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
  #611  
Old 12-25-12, 16:49
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
we should start connecting dots a.s.a.p., before it's too late, i.e. before cycling has missed another opportunity to clean house and change course.
You can be assured that if cycling misses a chance to change it will be ****** all to do with what does or doesn't get said in a tiny corner of the Internet. You fail to grasp that unsubstantiated claims are just that. In other words, gossip.

Quote:
If your eyes remain shut, it's because you choose to keep them shut, not because the arguments aren't persuasive enough.
Yes, there are lots of people who think that. You can find any number of them on any conspiracy website you choose, all of them absolutely convinced that the dots join up and that the rest of the world is blind.

Quote:
This is you bending the arguments to make them look silly.
But if you wanna be Liggett's best friend, keep up Sky's defence.
See, you are at it now. Invoking the Armstrong demon in all of its guises, because you think it adds value to your argument. How can you possibly think that saying that adds anything to your position other than making you look infantile?

Last edited by Joachim; 12-25-12 at 16:53.
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 12-25-12, 17:03
thehog thehog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
+10.
pretty much my thoughts


Fail.
Hog and many others have pointed out such a ****load of dodginess, contradicting statements, and hard facts wrt Sky that we should start connecting dots a.s.a.p., before it's too late, i.e. before cycling has missed another opportunity to clean house and change course. If your eyes remain shut, it's because you choose to keep them shut, not because the arguments aren't persuasive enough.


This is you bending the arguments to make them look silly.
But if you wanna be Liggett's best friend, keep up Sky's defence.
Thank-you.

This is the Clinic and by that virtue discusses matters of doping.

Not sure why so many object in discussing the matters presented in relation to doping & Sky (Clinic).

Sky hire nerifous doing Doctor; discuss.

That is all what I'm doing. Merely rasing question regards to Sky's conduct.

To present it another way; if Sky never hired Lienders, trained in Tenerife, had Yates as DS, likened themselves to USPS, employed Rogers, completely dominated the entire 2012 season, outrageouly dominated the 2012 Tour de France then maybe questions wouldn't be raised.

The fact that Sky did all those thing and refuse to provide answers why they did means the topics are worthy of discussion.

Suppression and censoring my questions probably won't get us to the answers that so desperately need to be answered.

Why Lienders and not some other Doctor?
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 12-25-12, 17:23
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehog View Post
That is all what I'm doing. Merely rasing question regards to Sky's conduct.
.
No. You are making definitive statements, not hypotheses.

By all means ask questions. But don't resort to making stuff up, in the hope that it will then be inculcated into the collective forum mythology.

You won't get the irony of this, but that part of your last post where you quote what you consider to be suspicious behaviour (employing riders, training, winning) is your version of marginal gains.

Doesn't add up, does it.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 12-25-12, 18:25
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
You can be assured that if cycling misses a chance to change it will be ****** all to do with what does or doesn't get said in a tiny corner of the Internet. You fail to grasp that unsubstantiated claims are just that. In other words, gossip.
...
with 'we' I meant fans AND journalists.

We need journalists to make critical inquiries into Sky's success, even when hard evidence of doping offences is not available.
You call it gossip. I call it plausible speculation based on common sense. Common sense (which in turn relies largely on past experiences) suggests that there are significant chances that Sky are doping.
IMO, journalists should more often take recourse to common sense speculation as a means to apply pressure. It would compell Sky (and other teams) to become more transparent, e.g. by publishing passport data, etc.

The shotgun evidence against armstrong was also marginal.
Where would we be if guys like Kimmage and Walsh would have stopped applying common sense?

Last edited by sniper; 12-25-12 at 18:28.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 12-25-12, 18:55
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
with 'we' I meant fans AND journalists.

We need journalists to make critical inquiries into Sky's success, even when hard evidence of doping offences is not available.
You call it gossip. I call it plausible speculation based on common sense. Common sense (which in turn relies largely on past experiences) suggests that there are significant chances that Sky are doping.
IMO, journalists should more often take recourse to common sense speculation as a means to apply pressure. It would compell Sky (and other teams) to become more transparent, e.g. by publishing passport data, etc.

The shotgun evidence against armstrong was also marginal.
Where would we be if guys like Kimmage and Walsh would have stopped applying common sense?
Eh? They didn't apply common sense, they had solid circumstantial evidence, have you not read L.A. Confidentiel? They also had contacts some of whom would only talk off-the-record. They knew Armstrong was a massive doper (didn't we all) but not in the same way that 'hog' claims to know. To claim to know something you have to believe it, and that belief has to be true and justifiable. Hog only satisfies one of those criteria.

Armstrong was swimming in **** for years, and whilst Kimmage and Walsh made their valuable contributions (and their journalistic careers) the real meat on the bones came from Landis and Hamilton. Those two kicked it off. Kimmage was a partial conduit in that. It took direct testimony from team members to bring Armstrong down.

Maybe we'll see some dirt come out on Sky, maybe we won't. Maybe there isn't any. Frankly, if you want the truth to come out then the multiplicity of statements found in these pages stating that Sky are definitely doping, without circumstantial evidence or testimony, are actually harming the credibility of any inquiry. It just looks like what it is.

Out of sheer boredom, a love of intrigue, and an extreme dislike of Murdoch, I'd love to see Sky explode with a mega-doping scandal. But, I'm not going to accept stuff that is made up, nor am I going to give any credence to atrociously concocted arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 12-25-12, 19:14
sniper sniper is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,808
Default a plea for more gossiping

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
..(snipped).
obviously we had more on lance than we now have on sky. but there is plenty of circumstatial evidence for the press to start inquiring into sky's success. perhaps we simply disagree in terms of the weight of that circumstantial evidence. I (and e.g. Hog) think it's severe.

and why not learn from the armstrong case?
if the case taught us anything, then it's the fact that we (i.e. fans and press) should act much earlier and start inquiring much earlier, which in the case of Sky is round about now.

who wants their intelligence to be insulted by marginal gains talk any longer? I don't.

Teams like Sky likely also have learned alot from the Armstrong case, for instance how to cover up evidence and not leave any tangible traces of doping. It's why we should be additionally cautious and weary, and why we should not sit back and wait for tangible evidence to surface.

And we didn't even need the armstrong-case to tell us that in cycling where there is smoke there is fire.

Increase the pressure.
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 12-25-12, 19:42
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
but there is plenty of circumstatial evidence for the press to start inquiring sky's success.
Except that there isn't. Words like 'Tenerife' are not evidence. Winning is not evidence, especially when not a single sports physiologist with any background has cast doubts on the physical parameters of the winning efforts. Employing Yates is no more evidence than employing Julich, or any number of people in Garmin and most other teams. One of my favourite riders, Zabel, doped. Can we condemn Cavendish just because he worked with Zabel? Who the hell else is there to employ? One by one even the most sacred cows are falling, not through choice but because they are forced to through solid implication by others. With Sky there has been none of this. It may come or it may not.

Even with the Leinders issue, for exactly the same reasons as above, it is too early to make the leap of faith into assumption of guilt. Faith won't do. I agree that the Leinders issue has not been satisfactorily resolved. We will have to wait and see.

Quote:
and why not learn from the armstrong case?
if the case taught us anything, then it's the fact that we (i.e. fans and press) should act much earlier and start inquiring much earlier, which in the case of Sky is round about now.
People did learn. What the Armstrong case teaches us is that corruption works. It teaches us that the UCI needs a reformation.

Quote:
who wants their intelligence to be insulted by marginal gains talk any longer? I don't.
You miss the point with that. You aren't alone in that. 'Marginal gains' is about being able to afford the tiniest details. It is also about psyching out your opponents, and probably most of all bigging yourself up as a team manager

Quote:
Teams like Sky likely also have learned alot from the Armstrong case, for instance how to cover up evidence and not leave any tangible traces of doping.
See? That presupposes Sky are doping. You've already decided that and everything you see will be seen with prejudice. It is a fallacy that is in abundance on these pages. You aren't alone, I am not condemning you for it even though I think you are wrong, because it is born out of understandable cynicism. You've the right motivation, but the wrong method.

It is precisely because of this that Wiggins or Sky are unlikely to ever release blood values to you. That doesn't mean the wont get scrutinised, they will, but not by Internet-educated self-appointed experts.

Last edited by Joachim; 12-25-12 at 19:50.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 12-25-12, 19:52
will10's Avatar
will10 will10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,981
Default

For Joachim: I found this from August but it's missing a few bits and pieces that have come to light since then.

Quote:
- Rogers, Porte and Wiggins endless form peaks from February to July.

- Christopher Froome's stratospheric rise from a rider deemed unworthy of a contract renewal, to a very close 2nd in the Vuelta.

- Froome incapable of even helping the team at Romandie (end of May 2012) -> the best rider in the race at the Tour. In fact in view of the first point, I guess we should be expecting Froome to be running an endless peak of his own, stretching Dauphine, Tour, Olympics, Vuelta, Worlds and Lombardy, right?

- Michael Rogers openly expressing in the press that he is putting out the biggest numbers in his career, a career which included working with Ferrari and two seasons at T-Mobile during a very messy period, with both the Puerto and the Uni of Freiberg blood doping scandals. A 32 year old who has never climbed with the best prior to this Tour, dropping all but the top GC guys. His epic 50km pull on the La Toussuire stage to leave us with a group of 20 at the bottom of the final climb. Who needs EPO and blood transfusions if you've got a swimming coach and a few marginal gains?

- Froome's near-record ascent of La Toussuire, despite spending most of the second half of the climb looking over his shoulder to make sure he didn't drop Brad.

- The Sky train climbing the Peyresourde almost as quickly as the ridiculous record set by Rasmussen and Contador's infamous battle.

- Porte miraculously a top 8 climber in the Tour, dropping reputed climbers who stuck minutes into him at his previous "best" climbing performance, the Giro 2010.

- The under-the-radar recruitment of Geert Leinders. Why him? Even if he's changed his ways, surely the guilt-by-association rumours aren't worth the risk?

- The change of attitude from the 100% transparent team we were assured in 2010: In 2007 Wiggins also said that any staff, doctor, DS etc. with "1% suspicion" should be excluded from the Tour, and yet here we are - he's won the Tour with a team which hired Geert Leinders, Sean Yates, Michael Barry and Mick Rogers.
__________________
Quote:
...[Walsh] thinks we're ahead of the curve. But think about it for a sec. We're building long-lasting, trusting relationships with people who are spending a lot of money - Coke, Nike, Subaru. If we're f***ing lying, we can kiss it all goodbye. And if we were lying we'd do some stupid stuff to try to cover it up, wouldn't we? Does anybody think for a second that a secret that big wouldn't come out? Bill Stapleton
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 12-25-12, 20:05
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
For Joachim: I found this from August but it's missing a few bits and pieces that have come to light since then.
Here's your homework. Strip out all the emotive language, value-laden adjectives, presupposition and corresponding conclusions and repost it and I'll assess the merits of it fairly.
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 12-25-12, 20:14
The Hitch's Avatar
The Hitch The Hitch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London.
Posts: 22,570
Default

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will10 View Post
For Joachim: I found this from August but it's missing a few bits and pieces that have come to light since then.
Wiggins going from.top5 tter who never won a non prologue tt to during 5 glorious months winning every single non prologue tt including the.mountain one.

Wiggins speeds at tdf and Olympics tts matching and surpassing all the doping greats.

Im shocked btw.to hear wiggins did peyresoudes.almost as fast as 07 contador and rasmussen. The argument you read in every single " wiggins won clean" article is that the times.were.slower ( always conveniently ignoring the tts )

And that's just their tour performance.

There's also.wiggins going from being anti doping doctors and pro.scepticism.in cycling to being pro doping doctors and telling sceptics that they are "bone.idle ****ers" and daring them to " say it to.his face".

There's wiggins bizzarely claiming at the tdf presentation that doping was "15 years ago" ( despite the supposedly " sickening" experience 5 years ago of being searched by police because a teammates was caught - did he forget) and equally bizzarely claiming to.have only ridden against lance in one race in 2005 ( despite the fact that his own autobiography has him and lance riding in 2009 on the cover, and despite the fact that he ciited repeatedly the experience of riding with lance in 2009 as an inspiration behind his own training and wins).

Wiggins defending lance and attacking landis as a drunk

There's sky - who.claim to.be new age anti.doping being cosy with the uci.

And what btw is the.miracle.of clean cycling doing being paisans with the likes of.vino ?

There's also sky - who.claimed to.hire only clean staff and riders bringing in the likes of yates and barry then styling themselves as ukpostal. I mean wtf.

Bailsford explaining marginal gains as working because cycling was entirely doping based and everyone was too.focused with doping to.think.about actually training before 2010, then 1 by 1 expressing shock as staff on his team are revealed as former dopers.
Then expressing shock that lance doped - if you didn't know they were doping, how could.cycling have been doping based?


Though- to be pedantic his giro tt win was not a prologue in name as it was a few metres.too.long. But it was a prologue effort
__________________
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013 (still undefeated). Currently 2nd all time cq rankings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pre 2009 wiggins
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that.
journalist with integrity.

Last edited by The Hitch; 12-25-12 at 20:26.
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 19:17.


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.