Log in:  

Register

Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

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:

10 Aug 2018 12:19

samhocking wrote:A 2kg dump? You need to cut down on the pork pies! Most people have a 3-400g dump!

quite....

but c'mon sam...you've read the book ;)
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,487
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re:

10 Aug 2018 12:22

samhocking wrote:Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the biggest access top funds to pay for protection, it would be Movistar.
Also, I would argue, I was Sky paying for protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!

I'm not saying they are paying for protection. I'm saying that they are protected by the amount of money they can throw at defending any case against them. Both what we have seen in the open (Froome's case) and undoubtedly what we haven't seen with maneuverings and threats behind the scenes. And also protected in the amount of money they can pay for expertise (who is the current Leinders on their payroll I wonder) in use of nefarious substances.

The size of the company is irrelevant. Movistar (or Telefonica) don't commit anywhere near the budget to their cycling team as Sky do to theirs. Sky is by far the biggest budget team and is more than prepared to throw its financial clout around. To get the best return on their investment they want a British winner, and will speculate to accumulate in that respect.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

10 Aug 2018 12:43

I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at the point of just a small handful of options to use mildly performance enhancing substances that cross the prohibited and specified/TUE line at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to more money in order to dope with more impunity than him and Tinkoff for example? There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today and if the state of winners, is those taking Salbutomol, then that would imply the peloton is significantly cleaner bothering with relatively poor performance enhancers like that.
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,888
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re:

10 Aug 2018 12:51

samhocking wrote:I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to money in order to dope with more impunity than others. There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today?

Well obviously that's not the only factor in deciding who wins. But it is one of many. Some of them are undoubtedly sporting, and Sky do have some legitimate advantages - i.e. the strength of team, robust training programme, rider motivation and psychology, natural talent. But some of them are not sporting - doping, lawyers covering up scandals, TUE abuse, 'altitude' training camps. And, while Sky don't have a monopoly on any of these, they have the financial clout to execute them better than the rest. Which is why they are almost universally loathed.
User avatar DFA123
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,336
Joined: 07 Nov 2010 16:00
Location: Valencia

Re:

10 Aug 2018 13:50

samhocking wrote:Well, Movistar are financially 4x bigger than Sky UK. If any company had the access to the most funds to pay for protection for a sponsors ROI, it would be Movistar, assuming UCI sells the best protection to the highest bidder like most rackets do.
Also, I would argue, If was Sky paying for UCI protection, how UCI handled my top rider, I would not be impressed with what I got for my money this year!


He was cleared and he continued to race in the time leading up to that decision. What is the complaint?
User avatar Angliru
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,312
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 13:30

Re:

10 Aug 2018 14:55

samhocking wrote:A 2kg dump? You need to cut down on the pork pies! Most people have a 3-400g dump!

Most people aren't as full of sh*t as those connected to Team Sky.
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

Re:

10 Aug 2018 18:57

samhocking wrote:I really can't agree that the financial legal ability to fight a theoretical AAF at the point of just a small handful of options to use mildly performance enhancing substances that cross the prohibited and specified/TUE line at some point in the future is the difference between a rider winning and not winning Tour de France. Contador used the same lawyer for example, and is worth $17 million dollars, Froome is currently worth $14.6 million. I can't see that Froome beating Contador was down to more money in order to dope with more impunity than him and Tinkoff for example? There is very little evidence for that being the state of pro cycling today and if the state of winners, is those taking Salbutomol, then that would imply the peloton is significantly cleaner bothering with relatively poor performance enhancers like that.


it wasn't a theoretical AAF...it was an AAF

anyway....the difference is that one was strict liability and one wasn't...with so many grey areas, that's where the money goes.....pushing every one...as we saw that is exactly what they did...Contador only had one angle...the steak...
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,487
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

Re: Re:

10 Aug 2018 20:21

simoni wrote:
F

Since this is largely about Thomas, just a bit on his own weight loss (if the figures can be believed)

2011 - (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/8606668/Tour-de-France-2011-Geraint-Thomas-QandA.html) - 71kg

2013 - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraint_Thomas (but ultimately from Sky own website at that time) - 70kg

2018 - (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/29/geraint-thomas-seals-tour-de-france-title-paris-team-sky-chris-froome) - 67.6kg

So clearly he's lost a bit over the years but I doubt he was ever 85kg!


OK my bad if those are true, I knew that Wiggo was low-mid 80s when pursuiting and just assumed Thomas would be similar as he didnt look Tour winner thin, but well, like a healthy trackie.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/olympics/bradley-wiggins-gains-over-11kg-as-he-prepares-for-olympic-team-pursuit-205328
Winterfold
Member
 
Posts: 1,554
Joined: 30 Jul 2009 22:54

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Aug 2018 07:27

the issue isn't the difference in weight but how it was achieved....whilst making it up :) I'm pretty sure that those trotted out as being pursuit and GT winners historically pretty much did it concurrently and at the same roughly the same weight...sky seem to have the ability to have their riders yo yo in manner some might call both highly suspicious and unhealthly..............

Edit to add the wise (and still unanswered) words of our great leader:

To illustrate the point, Paul Kimmage asked Brailsford precisely how Peter Kennaugh had managed - by his own admission - to lose five kilograms since he lined up at the Tour de Romandie in late April.

"Through calorie deficit," Brailsford said bluntly, before then expanding slightly on his answer. "Why not speak to Nigel our nutritionist? It's a good question to ask. That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."
gillan1969
Member
 
Posts: 1,487
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 12:25

11 Aug 2018 11:02

It’s almost as if Brailsford doesn’t know what’s going on haha
Winterfold
Member
 
Posts: 1,554
Joined: 30 Jul 2009 22:54

Re:

11 Aug 2018 14:54

Winterfold wrote:It’s almost as if Brailsford doesn’t know what’s going on haha

He doesnt. Just there to fascilitate.
il Mito wrote:“I’m in pension, I don’t give a **** about training,” Ferrari said. “They are all strong without me. Did you see the Tour de France?”
User avatar Fearless Greg Lemond
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,238
Joined: 20 Apr 2012 15:07
Location: Netherlands

Re: Geraint Thomas, the next british hope

11 Aug 2018 15:05

gillan1969 wrote:"That is a lot of weight to lose and I totally agree with you. What do we do to get to that kind of weight loss? They're the types of questions that would be legitimate to answer. I don't think there's any great secret in that."


"And believe me, we want to answer. And we will answer. And when we answer, our answer will blow you away. Because he have good answers. The best. Bigly."
User avatar GuyIncognito
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,257
Joined: 27 Jun 2013 21:19

22 Aug 2018 17:35

Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.
User avatar Escarabajo
Veteran
 
Posts: 9,352
Joined: 16 Apr 2009 18:38
Location: USA - Central Time

Re:

22 Aug 2018 18:24

Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.
Scarponi
Member
 
Posts: 1,670
Joined: 21 Apr 2015 08:56

Re: Re:

22 Aug 2018 19:40

Scarponi wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.

Feel freee to asterisk his win then.....it seems like it’s the done thing about here
rick james
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,425
Joined: 02 Sep 2014 13:21
Location: Ecosse

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2018 09:52

Scarponi wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.


So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.

So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?

I'm confused :confused:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re:

23 Aug 2018 09:58

Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.


Floyd?

I have much less problem with Thomas winning than I would have if Froome had won. Thomas raced smartly (unlike, say, Yates in the Giro), TT'd well as you'd expect, and used his classics experience to avoid problems in the cobbles. If it's clinic-related, he's also avoided any direct implication. We may believe Thomas is dirty, and he likely is, and we might detest Sky for very good reasons -- but in the scheme of things he stacks up pretty well against most one-time TdF winners.
Bolder
Member
 
Posts: 568
Joined: 25 Jun 2015 07:29

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2018 12:04

brownbobby wrote:
Scarponi wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.


So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.

Yeah you are confused alright. He had no business being in that position in the first place

So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?

I'm confused :confused:
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,483
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2018 12:26

veganrob wrote:
brownbobby wrote:
Scarponi wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.


So a few weeks ago he was another example of Sky's ridiculous doping programme transforming a trackie into a super strong GT winner....now it's just a case of the bar being set so low that a 'piss weak' trackie can come along and win it.

Yeah you are confused alright. He had no business being in that position in the first place

So was he on Sky's magic programme but still piss weak? Does that mean that Sky's programme wasn't so magic after all? And what happened to Froome...surely he was still on the magic programme but somehow got beat by a piss weak trackie/classics wannabe?

I'm confused :confused:


There you go, i've helpfully highlighted the words which you embedded without distinction within the body of my original post....just to avoid further confusing those amongst us who are easily confused :cool:
brownbobby
Member
 
Posts: 887
Joined: 27 Sep 2017 07:14

Re: Re:

26 Aug 2018 09:57

Scarponi wrote:
Escarabajo wrote:Nothing to do with Thomas personality because he seems to be like a good likeable guy. But I think he is IMHO the worst winner in the history of the Tour de France (post war). It lowered the bar too much on requirements of a winner. Thanks UCI.

He literally
Attacked on one stage under 1km to go and another under 5km to go because everyone watched the 4 time champion. It’s literally the most piss weak Champion ever.

You don't know what literally means do you?
Singer01
Member
 
Posts: 1,101
Joined: 18 Nov 2013 19:04

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests

Back to top