Log in:  

Register

The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:47

bigcog wrote:
GraftPunk wrote:Oh hai guys! Anything interesting happen today?


You mean Dauphine and Sky winning the TTT. Did you see their team ? Hardly otherworldly.


Eh, we can revisit in the next few days since the top four on GC are all sky, and will probably rule the mountains as much as the TTT.
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 676
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:55

macbindle wrote:Froome is curious. 2011 was a massive uptick in performance. Did he start doping or was he already doping? Did he find something new? If he did, did he find it on his own or did it come through Sky? If it came through Sky, why did they wait so long?


We as 'fans' of the sport can only guess what doping/cheating Froome/Sky are at till it eventually comes out.

But you know this and keep demanding answers that Anit-doping dont have never mind fans.

But as for joining the dots(ie evidence), there are plenty.

The Sky threads are full of them from Leinders, Yates, De Jongh, Knaven, Jullich amongst others.

Then there are the constant changing stories, the lies.

Then there are the unbelievable performances from riders who showed no evidence of GT ability.

Why would Froome's previous teams not be doping? Why would they not dope Froome?

What explains his transformation? Lots, more than he just lost the fan BS from Swart. Motors are one aswell as a big cocktail of PEDs.

The sport has a culture of doping and never ever has that been shown to have changed.

So the clinic is a forum for discussing the possibilities of what teams and riders are doing. It is not here to prove anything. That is the anti-doping agency's job, if they can be bothered.

But as i said, you know all this, as this forum didn't materialise recently, it is more than a decade old and yet you demand it answers to your questions and queries. It is for discussion.

We know Sky/Froome are doping/cheating. It is easy to know this. That is the nature of the sport. The answers about how they do it, well Sky have never provided any kind of transparency and when called on it have changed their story constantly. Sky made all kinds of claims in 2010. In the 8 years since all those claims have been debunked with Sky providing no proof that they worked. In fact the opposite has happened. E.G. They claimed that their attention to detail, every detail was going to mean no stone leftunturned, yet Froome was never in a wind tunnel beore he won a GT. Froome was the bottom of their table of talent, yet has been their most succesful rider. How is this possible from a team that piad attention to evey detail and left no stone unturned? This is one of the many reasons we know this team/rider are cheating/doping/motoring.

I think fans are right to call it a duck. If Sky dont want to be seen as ducks then they need to show how it is all done. If they are so good at it, they have big headstart on all the others and it should still give them a big advantage as their attention to detail and ALWAYS looking for THE MARGINAL GAIN should not slow them down.

But we dont so anything but lies so we know it is a team that is cheating/doping/motoring. No, no guessing, we know. We see the smoke and smoke has only demonstrasted one thing in pro cycling.

The UCI is part of the circus, it always has been and always will be. That is the nature of pro cycling. It will forever be a sport tarnished to the general sporting public as the doping sport. Sky wont change that, in fact they have already added to its image, with the Jiffybag scandal. The Jiffy bag scandal really showed team sky for the dopers they are. So funny.

How much more ridiculous can they get? Who knows, will the Murdoch's continue with this slapstick when they flog Sky Corp? Who knows. Who actually cares that much anymore?
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,336
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

06 Jun 2018 18:59

I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:00

macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.

Why don't you get around to posting those studies Merckx Index requested before being all holier-than-thou about answering questions?
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 648
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:06

macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.


The questions you asked have all been answered with guesses in the previous 80+ pages. Froome exploded in Vuelta'11. There are lots of sky threads where posters try to answer the hows.

Sky threads all have fanboys/bots demanding to know what sky were/are doing that was/is cheating. That has all been answered by now. Until we find out the exact nature of it and we always do at some later stage it is discussion.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,336
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

06 Jun 2018 19:08

So go on then...discuss....or keep quiet and let others.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:13

Saint Unix wrote:
macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.

Why don't you get around to posting those studies Merckx Index requested before being all holier-than-thou about answering questions?


Why? Because searching for studies, and re-reading them, is a time-consuming business. Not something I can do at a click of your fingers, especially since I am posting on a phone whilst eating my dinner.

The questions I asked can be answered quite quickly with either a theory, or an acknowledgement that it remains a mystery.

I hope that helps.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:23

Benotti69 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
Benotti69 wrote:Sky really fired one across the sports bows with the 1500 page document.

A warning of do not mess with us or we will **** you up.

Even more reason to want to see them gone from the sport.


How is a 1500 page document going to **** anybody up? It's not an attack, its a defence. Why do you assume that they might not actually have a strong case? There are some very well-conducted studies that call into question the basis of the Salbutamol test. Who are you, and what specialist knowledge do you have, that refutes these studies?

Something evidence based please, not your usual faith-based responses.


Faith based....hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

Only the team that apparently reinvented the sport with marginal gains could find a legitimate fault with a test that has banned lots of athletes!

Again, when a team and its riders in this sport do the unbelievable and constantly contradict themselves trying to explain that unbeievabilty away people want to shoot the 'skeptics'.

I dont need to refute anything. Sky/Froome has plenty of evidence pointing to doping/cheating/motors.

Anyone who still thinks Sky do it clean should be avoided.


So in effect you are saying that no other cyclist charged with exceeding the salbutamol level has launched a strong defence - It's a pity you are wrong - And your last three paragraphs are cheerleading.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:29

Benotti69 wrote:
macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.


The questions you asked have all been answered with guesses in the previous 80+ pages. Froome exploded in Vuelta'11. There are lots of sky threads where posters try to answer the hows.

Sky threads all have fanboys/bots demanding to know what sky were/are doing that was/is cheating. That has all been answered by now. Until we find out the exact nature of it and we always do at some later stage it is discussion.


I doubt you get far by calling someone a 'skyboy' because they have a different opinion or challenge your assertions - MacBindle's post was strictly about Froome's on-going salbutamol case - Whether it's Froome or Joe Bloggs or Mary Hill they have the right to mount a strong defence, especially in a case where it's a threshold issue.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:33

macbindle wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:
macbindle wrote:I agree with most but not all of that. I'm just slightly curious as to why you have posted it rather than ponder the specific questions I asked...or not answer at all.

Why don't you get around to posting those studies Merckx Index requested before being all holier-than-thou about answering questions?


Why? Because searching for studies, and re-reading them, is a time-consuming business. Not something I can do at a click of your fingers, especially since I am posting on a phone whilst eating my dinner.

The questions I asked can be answered quite quickly with either a theory, or an acknowledgement that it remains a mystery.

I hope that helps.


You will find somewhere in 'The Clinic' posts that detail to some extent the defence put forward by Petacchi and Ullisi - A few who post in The Clinic will be able to find the posts.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

06 Jun 2018 19:36

Ah cheers. Petacchi and Ulissi cases were well before I discovered this forum, but I guess they might have been posted in relation to Froome. I haven't really read much on the Salbutamol thread. The studies I mentioned were ones I've seen elsewhere.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:38

macbindle wrote:Yeah all true. But...Why did Sky wait so long to dope Froome, they were looking to offload him. Why did Wiggins only manage one year. Many many questions.


Because a team can only have one leader; Froome was an alltogether better option for SDB, Wiggins was full of himself, & got stroppy the minute he got in front.

As to why Froome waited for so long; it's well known that Sky were disappointed how badly their initial seasons went, & obviously decided they needed to do more; & coincidentally, part of this was the infamous chart with riders age & performance, & their 'potential'; you know, the one that was going to mean Froome's contract wasn't going to get renewed.

My guess was that it was explained to Froome in very small words what was needed of him, for him to get a new contract. The rest is history.
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

06 Jun 2018 19:45

In other words you think he was previously clean...or mostly clean?

To me, very little about Froome makes sense with or without drugs :D
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jun 2018 19:49

macbindle wrote:So go on then...discuss....or keep quiet and let others.


You do realize that whether Benotti keeps quiet or not has no baring on the ability of others to be a part of the discussion?
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,170
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 21:01

macbindle wrote:
searching for studies, and re-reading them, is a time-consuming business. Not something I can do at a click of your fingers, especially since I am posting on a phone whilst eating my dinner.


Mac, some well-intentioned advice: stay off this forum while eating. Your stomach deserves more respect than that. There are very few things in life—and certainly this forum is not one of them—that are so important that they should or need to be attended to while eating. Make time for meals and just eat. Period.

yaco wrote:
You will find somewhere in 'The Clinic' posts that detail to some extent the defence put forward by Petacchi and Ullisi - A few who post in The Clinic will be able to find the posts.


Petacchi raised all the usual issues that athletes over the salbutamol threshold try, but as was noted in the CAS decision, he provided no evidence to support any of them. That’s why there was no discussion of any of them in the decision, other than to mention that they were raised. Very clearly nothing remotely close to 1500 pages.

Ulissi’s decision was never published, as it wasn’t required by his federation, and like most athletes, he was too chicken-sh!t to let the fans know the details of his case.

Sundby’s case has been discussed at length in the salbutamol thread. His main defense was that he should be allowed to use a nebulizer on his doctor’s recommendation, and that the relationship between amount inhaled and urine concentration is very different in that case from that of the inhaler. Not relevant to Froome (unless he switches his story that he didn't take too much by accident), and again, didn’t take that many pages to document.

Froome’s case, as a guess, is going to come down to a claim that urine levels can be much higher if a sample is given within one hour of taking the maximum allowed. Again, that argument doesn’t require anything close to 1500 pages. There isn’t any single argument I can imagine that would require anything like that amount; even if he tried every argument ever tried in a salbutamol case, that would be excessive. But I’m guessing Lappartient was exaggerating when he said 1500 pages. Unless a very large fraction of them are cover letters, administrative details, and other fluff not directly related to the science.

Floyd's case was the most complex I think I can recall--unlike Froome's case, in Floyd's there were serious questions about lab procedures and the validity of measurements--and how many pages was that? Of course the final decision is going to be stream-lined compared to all the supporting documents, but still.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,623
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re:

06 Jun 2018 21:27

macbindle wrote:In other words you think he was previously clean...or mostly clean?

To me, very little about Froome makes sense with or without drugs :D


yeah, he was so clean, or doping so ineffectively, that he was going to lose his contract, & so clean he got kicked off a race for hanging onto a moto. That clean !
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

Re:

06 Jun 2018 21:29

macbindle wrote:Yeah all true. But...Why did Sky wait so long to dope Froome, they were looking to offload him. Why did Wiggins only manage one year. Many many questions.


Froome was bottom of their chart for performance.

see here

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/04/DBgraphhires1.jpg

They probably waited to see what he could do before spending money on doping. He may have got microdosed and still showed no performance rise. His wife claims (in article to Kimmage)she took over his training and nutrition. His Mother in law is a body builder, so this could also explain lots. Then we have Varjas story of delivering motors to Monaco. Join the dots.

Wiggins realised Froome was going to blow him away in every GT. Sky backed Froome for TdFs. He also lost his nerve, see Giro 2013.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,336
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

06 Jun 2018 21:38

You are forgetting that Froome wasn't selected for the Vuelta team in 2011. He got a place because someone else withdrew.

By the way, Froome isn't the only pro who lives in Monoco. The dots might lead elsewhere.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jun 2018 21:50

macbindle wrote:You are forgetting that Froome wasn't selected for the Vuelta team in 2011. He got a place because someone else withdrew.

By the way, Froome isn't the only pro who lives in Monoco. The dots might lead elsewhere.


Imagine Froome can beat other pros on motors who took delivery of motors, just imagine that, i think i hear the Disney tune......... :D
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,336
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 22:15

Benotti69 wrote:
macbindle wrote:You are forgetting that Froome wasn't selected for the Vuelta team in 2011. He got a place because someone else withdrew.

By the way, Froome isn't the only pro who lives in Monoco. The dots might lead elsewhere.


Imagine Froome can beat other pros on motors who took delivery of motors, just imagine that, i think i hear the Disney tune......... :D


Matthew Goss, Simon Gerrans, Dave Tanner, Mark Renshaw, Theo Bos, Richie Porte, Calvin Watson,Axel Merckx, Gert Steegmans, Tom Boonen, Philippe Gilbert, Stefan Everts, Justine Hénin, Thierry Boutsen,Tim Wellens, Geraint Thomas, Lizzie A, Vino, Pozzato

...all direct competitors of Froome, you imply.

:lol:

Look, I'll leave you to it. There really is nothing to be
gained from you and I interacting apart from a sore head for me.

Cheers.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mayo from Mayo and 18 guests

Back to top