Sky - Page 1112 - 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
  #11111  
Old 12-31-12, 20:02
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Considering that vested interests are ALWAYS going to say "cycling is cleaner now", I'll disregard that and consider that you still can't do it on bread and water. The landscape of cycling hasn't changed enough recently for that to believeable. Also you're talking about a period during which Contador won, who is OLD SCHOOL without doubt. Contador FFS.
__________________
Scientific Expert

Last edited by taiwan; 12-31-12 at 20:05.
Reply With Quote
  #11112  
Old 12-31-12, 20:07
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Change is possible. We just don't know if or by much it has changed, so far. Remember, certainly by the mid 90's everybody was doping for one reason only, because everyone else was.
Reply With Quote
  #11113  
Old 12-31-12, 20:11
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
I understand the point you are making and it is a good point, they can't be certain. I'm not certain. How can anyone be certain?

If I've understood you correctly you are suggesting that they feel able to say Sky are not doping because they are going to rig the testing procedures somehow to ensure that Sky never test positive.

However, that strategy, if such a one existed, did not work for Armstrong, the UCI and by implication the ASO. It didn't matter that he never tested positive, the truth came out in ways beyond the UCI/ASO's control.

* slight point of order: I was using the phrase 'Armstrong never tested positive' to illustrate the above point, and how his ability, with the UCI's help, to cheat tests didn't keep him safe. He did test positive. Also , he didn't make a mockery of the tests singlehandly, he had the help of pretty much the entire peloton.


Not trying to score points here, and would genuinely be interested in if I've understood your point correctly and if so, whether you can accept mine.

@Benotti, read the above, I think it answers your post.
yeah, we understand each other.

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops. I have an explanation. You don't.
Reply With Quote
  #11114  
Old 12-31-12, 20:18
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper View Post
yeah, we understand each other.

So tell me why UCI is pronouncing Sky clean and are screaming it off the rooftops.
What else can they do? They are in a corner.

Quote:
I have an explanation. You don't.
No you have a theory. Now can you address the third paragraph in my post, please.
Reply With Quote
  #11115  
Old 12-31-12, 20:23
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
What else can they do?
They could say nothing or say that they have no reason at all to believe Sky aren't clean.

Quote:
They are in a corner.
Why are they in a corner?
Reply With Quote
  #11116  
Old 12-31-12, 20:30
Joachim Joachim is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 531
Default

Why are they in a corner?

Have you been under a rock these past few months? McQ is under attack from all angles over complicity in doping cover ups, and not fighting the fight. He has to say that things are cleaner otherwise he is acceding to his critics.

What he says is neither here nor there, but the one thing he knows is that is not within his power to cover up doping. The Armstrong Saga demonstrates that.
Reply With Quote
  #11117  
Old 12-31-12, 20:31
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim View Post
Change is possible. We just don't know if or by much it has changed, so far. Remember, certainly by the mid 90's everybody was doping for one reason only, because everyone else was.
Well in the mid 90s some were trying to gain advantage, doping to win, also. But what's your point? At that time they worked to the 50% limit, nowadays they have the BP, but the same people are operating under the new system - the landsape hasn't changed. I'm pretty much satisfied that significant advantage can be gained by doping under the BP and the "not since 2006" is bullshhit too. Otherwise cycling would look radically different.
__________________
Scientific Expert
Reply With Quote
  #11118  
Old 12-31-12, 21:16
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benotti69 View Post
Armstrong tested positive in 99 for steroids and the UCI broke their own rules by accepting a backdated TUE.

ASO and UCI did bet everythig on Armstrong so much so that they enabled him to win 7 in a row.
To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?
Reply With Quote
  #11119  
Old 12-31-12, 21:29
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?
The funny thing about the cortico's was he was asked before the cortico postive about doping and he replied he would never put anything in his body after having had cancer...

I wonder when Wiggins will make a similar faux pas....
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
Reply With Quote
  #11120  
Old 12-31-12, 21:29
taiwan's Avatar
taiwan taiwan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Greg Lemond View Post
To be fair, Armstrong had cortico's in his body that were below 'the positive' number. Ergo, I believe he had 4 wereas 6 was allowed, with a tue of course. But hell, everyone had a tue for saddledicksore back then. Except Superlance, he was so clean.

Is there an overview on tues for Team Sky or would that be too transparent?
A list of TUEs for Sky would be really interesting. Considering they have guys on their books with rare tropical blood diseases and such.
__________________
Scientific Expert
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 15:54.


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.