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: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Re: Re:

04 Jun 2018 01:47

El Pistolero wrote:
pastronef wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:
Gung Ho Gun wrote:Contador won both Giro and Vuelta in 2008, and Nibali would have done the same thing in 2013 if it wasn't for Horner

Huge difference between winning the Giro-Vuelta double and winning the Giro-Tour or the Tour-Vuelta.

Firstly, the recovery period gets slashed in half. After a three week race any normal human being needs a period of rest before they can get back into top form. Managing to both fully rest and get back into Grand Tour-winning form is almost impossible in the short time between two consecutive tours.

Secondly, the competition in the Tour is usually much harder, so winning it takes more from the rider.

If Froome wins four consecutive Grand Tours it will be the biggest raised middle finger to clean sport I've ever seen.


if the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc riders behind him are CLEAN yes :D it would be the biggest... etc etc
they are not

Froome cheats a lot more than others. He has no moral compass.

Either that, or Sky has found a new technique, or further developed an older one.
User avatar 42x16ss
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,795
Joined: 23 May 2009 04:43
Location: Brisbane, Aus

04 Jun 2018 12:43

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.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,457
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re:

04 Jun 2018 13:08

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.

Yep, classic tactic. Make the case bigger than the oppostion can afford.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,465
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridic

04 Jun 2018 17:11

I cannot wait for the "G" show in the Dauphine, dropping everyone in the mountains, despite his crash.....
User avatar hfer07
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,652
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 15:43

Re: The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridic

05 Jun 2018 08:38

hfer07 wrote:I cannot wait for the "G" show in the Dauphine, dropping everyone in the mountains, despite his crash.....


I suspect it will be the The Two G's show on Sky Channel.
User avatar wirral
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,499
Joined: 28 Mar 2011 06:05

06 Jun 2018 15:21

Oh hai guys! Anything interesting happen today?
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 755
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

Re:

06 Jun 2018 15:42

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


You mean Dauphine and Sky winning the TTT. Did you see their team ? Hardly otherworldly.
bigcog
Member
 
Posts: 1,407
Joined: 09 Jul 2012 18:33

Re:

06 Jun 2018 16:16

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.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 16:36

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.
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,457
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 16:57

macbindle wrote:
How is a 1500 page document going to **** anybody up? It's not an attack, its a defence.


It's not a defense, it's a delay--to allow Froome to ride the Tour. I doubt it really is 1500 pages, because one could reprint all the relevant studies in far less space, with hundreds of pages more left for analysis.

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.


Really? Can you cite some of these studies?

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


Pot-kettle, goose-gander.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,741
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 17:17

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.


Your entire post is irrelevant.

You have answered a question I haven't asked and just slipped into your usual 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I'm haven't asked you whether you think Sky dopes.

I know what you think. You post the same thing in most of your posts.

I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Salbutamol case.

I'll highlight the questions in my post above and let's see if you can actually manage to answer them. There are 3 of them.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 17:21

macbindle wrote:
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.


Your entire post is irrelevant.

You have answered a question I haven't asked and just slipped into your usual 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I'm haven't asked you whether you think Sky dopes.

I know what you think. You post the same thing in most of your posts.

I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Salbutamol case.

I'll highlight the questions in my post above and let's see if you can actually manage to answer them. There are 3 of them.


More obsfucation.

We get it. You big sky fan. :lol:
User avatar Benotti69
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,457
Joined: 26 May 2010 09:09

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 17:41

Benotti69 wrote:
macbindle wrote:
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.


Your entire post is irrelevant.

You have answered a question I haven't asked and just slipped into your usual 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I'm haven't asked you whether you think Sky dopes.

I know what you think. You post the same thing in most of your posts.

I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Salbutamol case.

I'll highlight the questions in my post above and let's see if you can actually manage to answer them. There are 3 of them.


More obsfucation.

We get it. You big sky fan. :lol:


Obfuscation? Which bits of my post do you find unclear?

Sky fan? No, as it happens. Let me be clear for you, I'm not defending Sky, I'm challenging you on your assertions.You seem to be trying to evade this.Do you think you have a special pass to post what you want and not be held to account for it?
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 17:51

Saint Unix wrote:
El Pistolero wrote:froome takes much more risks than others which is why the idiot got caught with something as stupid as salbutamol. Just watch interviews of him, he's a bigger sociopath than Armstrong.

Him and Sky in general are also far more shameless. Froome has no qualms about pulling out the most ludicrous doping-assisted displays seen in the last 10 years if he has to, no matter how ridiculous it ends up looking in the grand scheme of things. That, in addition to the team constantly peddling nonsense explanations for everything fishy that goes on around them. Leinders only there to weigh the riders, Froome had bilharzia without knowing it for years, marginal gains that every other team also does but somehow they work extra well for Sky, Froome just lost the fat and on and on and on and on...


He's a different type of animal to Armstrong. On the one hand he's obviously driven enough to do what he's doing; but i wonder how much of it is down to falling under the influence of SDB, & his beloved ?

At least Ankin only had deal with the Sith Lord turning him to 'The Dark Side', Fromme has Amidala whispering in his ear too, telling him to murder the younglings
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:01

macbindle wrote:
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.


Your entire post is irrelevant.

You have answered a question I haven't asked and just slipped into your usual 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I'm haven't asked you whether you think Sky dopes.

I know what you think. You post the same thing in most of your posts.

I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Salbutamol case.

I'll highlight the questions in my post above and let's see if you can actually manage to answer them. There are 3 of them.

When you get around to it, maybe you could cite some of those many case studies MI asked you about.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,465
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

06 Jun 2018 18:03

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?
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:05

veganrob wrote:
macbindle wrote:
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.


Your entire post is irrelevant.

You have answered a question I haven't asked and just slipped into your usual 'one-size-fits-all' answer.

I'm haven't asked you whether you think Sky dopes.

I know what you think. You post the same thing in most of your posts.

I asked you SPECIFICALLY about the Salbutamol case.

I'll highlight the questions in my post above and let's see if you can actually manage to answer them. There are 3 of them.

When you get around to it, maybe you could cite some of those many case studies MI asked you about.


Didn't see his post. I'll go and find them and post some links.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re: Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:06

Merckx index wrote:
macbindle wrote:
How is a 1500 page document going to **** anybody up? It's not an attack, its a defence.


It's not a defense, it's a delay--to allow Froome to ride the Tour. I doubt it really is 1500 pages, because one could reprint all the relevant studies in far less space, with hundreds of pages more left for analysis.

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.


Really? Can you cite some of these studies?

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


Pot-kettle, goose-gander.


Which of my points are faith-based?
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

Re:

06 Jun 2018 18:32

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?


It's not just, are they doping or not; it's all about, what program are they on, & do they have protection, & how many of their teammates are on good programs too.

It's not enough to take some pills; you have to be a responder (like Armstrong), & you have to have a program tuned to you specifically; & no rider wins alone, so you need a team to ride for you, & then you need some cover to make sure you don't have an unfortunate OOC test.

We've seen Froome make a miraculous transformation.
We've seen Sky tailgunners out riding principles from other teams
We've seen the unhealthy relationship between Sky & British Cycling, the T patches, the jiffy bag, & Zero Consequences.
keeponrollin
Junior Member
 
Posts: 249
Joined: 10 Jul 2012 06:18

06 Jun 2018 18:47

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.
(Warning: Posts may contain traces of irony)
User avatar macbindle
Member
 
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 22 Dec 2017 16:46

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davebqvst, eric_vv, Google [Bot] and 18 guests

Back to top